Note we do not have any financial arrangements or other interests in any of the products mentioned here!
For just about every question, there are almost as many different opinions as there are sailors. And, most of these different opinions are in fact valid for the specific individual with their particular boat and their unique mission. That said, below are our opinions based on our experiences to date. We reserve the right to change them, or even admit they are wrong, at any later date :)
7. How do you handle watchkeeping while on passage?
9. Do you use drogues or sea anchors in heavy weather?
9a. How about the bridled para-anchor technique?
30. What sort of life raft do you carry?
33. What courses or instruction should one take before going cruising?
34. What sort of boom preventer setup do you use?
37. What sort of emergency signaling equipment do you carry?
38. What sort of charts do you carry these days?
47. Do we really need four 300' lines on spools to cruise in the high latitudes?
54. Answer to shortest turning radius question in Seamanship Quiz seems wrong?
59. When do you start to motor, when you are on passage and the wind goes light?
65. What sort of anchor chain snubber do you use?
66. How do you clean snow off your decks?
Also see:
Medical Supplies - Voyager's Handbook
Emergency Rudders - 2007, Cruising World
Passage Prep Tips - 2005, Cruising World
Navy First Aid notes
Comments of ORC Category 1 requirements
Collision Regulation 5 says: "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout . . ." The trick for a double-handed crew is to figure out how to do this without incurring undue fatigue. Fatigue is the single biggest safety hazard aboard a cruising boat, being a major contributing factor in most unsafe situations and also a major damaging factor to the crew's ability to get themselves out of those situations. Beyond that, extreme fatigue is simply not enjoyable.
Adopting the schedule most commonly used on racing boats, many cruising couples follow a 4 hours on/4 hours off schedule, usually shortening the period to 2 or 3 hours in bad or cold weather. We tried that system but did not like it. We never seemed to get a long enough period of deep sleep. So, we split the night into two watches. Evans goes from after dinner to midnight, and Beth from midnight to dawn/breakfast. Beth will then sleep for a few hours after Evans gets up. With Hawk's very protected hard dodger we are much more comfortable on watch, and get less fatigued, and keep a better watch than we did on Silk. We adapt our watchkeeping procedure to our location and conditions. Within about 150 miles of any shore we keep an active continuous watch usually with someone in the cockpit, but if visibility is low with a radar watch. At the other end of the spectrum, crossing areas like the Southern Indian Ocean where there is essentially no vessel traffic, someone is awake at all times, perhaps reading in the nav station or resting on a settee, alert to weather changes and the resultant need to change sail trim/combination. Top of Page
We separate heavy weather into three distinct categories. First, is an approaching rotating storm. It's important to get as far away as possible from the center and the 'dangerous semicircle' of the storm. Moving even 100 miles in the right direction can lower your winds from 65kts to 30kts. There are quite clear rules as to which direct to go, depending on which semicircle of the storm you are in. In three of the storm quadrants ('navigable') its best to run and in one ('dangerous') its best to forereach. In none does it make sense to sit hove-to or on a para-anchor.
Second, is strong winds against an ocean current (most often the gulf stream, Agulhas or East Australian). The waves will be more than twice as high in the current as out of it. These currents are usually only 20 miles wide and no more than 100. So, in this case you want to get out of the current as quickly as possible. Again, it does not make sense to sit in the current if you can get out of it.
The third is a crush zone, where a low pressure system is pressing up against a large high. The can create quite a large zone of strong winds. If you are anywhere near the forecast track of the low, you want to move away, as there is often a very narrow extremely intense band of winds around the low. Moving even 50 miles will make a huge difference in wind strength and wave height. However, if you are not near the low track and the crush zone is too large to sail out of, and your destination is upwind you can sit and wait it out if that seems the best course of action.
So, from a strategic perspective, it is usually best to actively sail away from the worst weather. That means either forereaching or running (with a drogue if necessary to prevent surfing). You of course have to be getting good weather information while on passage to be strategic like this, and those recommending heaving-to and para-anchors as the magic solution usually are not using modern weather tools on passage.
We do carry a sea anchor and three different drogues. As suggested above, we prefer the 'forereaching' and 'running with a drogue' techniques and believe the sea anchor is a generally bad heavy weather solution for a vessel Hawk's size - uncomfortable in use, prone to chafed & broken rodes and difficult to retrieve. I can only imagine using it in a case where we were dismasted off a lee shore with the engine also broken, although even then I would try the series drogue first and see if that stabilized the boat and reduced our drift sufficiently.
One important fact to realize is that in severe storms the area with the worst weather and the really major breaking waves is usually quite compact, sometimes only 25 miles wide and rarely more than 100 miles - often along the fastest flow of an ocean current, at the edge of a continental shelf or right near the center of a low. It makes much more sense to use an active tactic (running with a drogue preferably or forereaching otherwise) to get as far away from this dangerous zone as possible (and secondarily make as much progress toward your destination as possible) than to sit on a para-anchor waiting for it to come smash you.
A second important fact is that storms conditions evolve, and while one tactic may be perfect early in a storm when the waves are short and steep, another tactic may be preferred later in the storm as the waves have matured. Thus it is useful to use tactics that are easy to execute and easy to change. Para-anchors, even small ones, are quite difficult to retrieve in storm conditions and are the most difficult tactic to change away from (unless you just cut the para-anchor away).
On Hawk, if we are going upwind and the conditions get so bad that we can not continue we will forereach on the double-reefed main or trysail. This technique was well proven with boats like Hawk (and many significantly smaller and less powerful boats) in extreme conditions in the ’98 Sydney to Hobart, and we used it successfully as a 956mb low passed directly overhead while we were off the Falklands. On Silk we hove-to with just the mizzen up and she sat in the perfect hove-to position - 45 degrees to the wind, no forward motion and just a slow drift downwind. But many fin keel boats will not heave-to in this sort of stable attitude. They want to keep sailing and if you try to stop them they will fall off until beam-to, then accelerate and drive up until then stop again. This is neither safe nor comfortable. In ultimate storm conditions, it is also possible that heaving-to and forereaching become unsafe when the bow starts getting knocked off by the waves, leaving the boat's beam exposed to the seas, although this did not happen to the boats forereaching in the extreme '98 Sydney to Hobart conditions. But if we did encounter that situation we would first try to sail the boat more aggressively to build momentum to punch through the waves. If our best helming and trimming did not help we would deploy our Series drogue (off the stern) to minimize the distance lost to leeward. Note: Our downwind drift rate under bare poles conditions (e.g. over 50kts) with the series drogue is about 1.5-2kts, which is not much more than the 1-1.5kts for our big para-anchor in similar conditions.
Running downwind (the other active tactic) in strong conditions short-handed (e.g. with self steering rather than a human at the helm) does require care in three areas. If you make a mistake and broach your forward momentum can be converted into a violent roll. The first area for care is in moving the sail plan forward. Many people initially make the mistake of trying to run with a deeply reefed main or trysail and no headsail. This is an unbalanced sail plan which will cause the boat to want to round up and will make the steering quite difficult. We typically drop the main entirely and sail with a staysail or storm jib. That causes extra work when we want the main again but provides much better steering control.
The second is in speed control. If you go too slow you lose rudder responsiveness and wallow around and could end up beam to the waves and you also take much more water into the cockpit, while if you go to fast you build up a tremendous amount of energy and if you do broach it will be fast and violent and could roll the boat. In storm conditions, Hawk likes about 6-7kts and Silk liked about 5kts. We vary the size of our headsail, and put a drogue out when necessary to maintain this speed.
The third is the best angle to take the waves. On boats which surf reasonably easily, like Hawk, we typically run square down the waves, taking care to control our speed and use a drogue when necessary to prevent surfing. On boats which don't surf, there is a theory that it is better to take the waves at a slight angle (about 15 degrees, just enough to prevent sudden acceleration down the wave front) and not use a drogue. Silk liked this. However it is more subtle and requires more seamanship than running square.
It should be noted some boat designs are fundamentally difficult to control while running, especially those with short/fat hulls, many late IOR designs and those with inefficient 'barn-door' rudders. Downwind these boats need to go to drogues much earlier than designs which run with better control.
If we are going downwind in really bad conditions, such as over 40kts blowing against a current, producing big steep waves, we use a drogue and Hawk really likes it. The drogue we have used most is a Galerider, set on a 600' rode (two 300' anchor lines tied together) with a bridle (a spare jib sheet tied to the rode with an icicle hitch, the rode led to a snatch block on one quarter, and the sheet to a snatch block on the other). We then set the autopilot or windvane to steer dead downwind. We retrieve this drogue by simply putting the rode on a winch or our anchor windlass and cranking it in.
This is very safe and comfortable, however, the Galerider will occasionally pull out of a wave face, allowing Hawk to surf forward until the drogue catches the water again. To solve this problem, we got a second drogue (a Paratech Delta drogue), and modified it by putting a Spectra strop through its center (pic1 & pic2), so I can shackle it in at the 300' point on the rode. This 'two-element series drogue' eliminates the problem because one of the two drogues is in the water at all times. We also carry a complete Jordan series drogue with 150 cones, which is the proven, most common, solution among Southern Ocean cruising boats. However, this drogue is more difficult to recover than my 2-element system because it can not be as easily winched in. So far we have not been in conditions where we felt unsafe with the Galerider or two-element drogue solution, so we have not yet deployed the Series drogue.
We have extensively experimented with rode length on our drogues in severe storm conditions and usually found two 'sweet spots' at about 100' (where the drogue is in the same wave surface as the boat) and at 500-600' (where the drogue is more than a wave length behind the boat). In these two sweet spots the drag device sits stably with relatively constant loading. 300' rodes have in our experience been exactly the most unstable length with the biggest slack and shock loading. However, much of our severe storm experience has been in long fetch Southern Ocean storms, and we know from personal experience that short fetch North Atlantic storms have different wave length dynamics.
There is unfortunately no science or scientific testing on optimal para-anchor rode length. However, it is obvious that no single rode length will be optimal in all storm/wave conditions (perhaps ranging from 100' - 600'). Also, once you put out rode in a storm it is very difficult to bring it back in until the storm winds have abated. So, one approach is to start with the shorter end of the spectrum (e.g. 100’), where our experience suggests the tension on the rode will be the steadiest and the likelihood of excessive slack developing the least, and then if the boat motion feels wrong, lengthen as necessary to find the sweet spot. Lengthening during a storm will be tricky given the enormous loads. To do this the rode must be properly led to a very strong capstan. (US Coast Guard study on drogues vs para anchors)
The primary reason such a high percentage of para-anchor rodes break in actual use (perhaps 80% of para-anchors deployed in extreme conditions have broken their rodes) is nylon’s extreme vulnerability to chafe and internal heat damage. The US Coast Guard and New England Ropes both have extensive experience with nylon failure due to internal heat generated by cyclic loading and recommend Dacron as a better alternative for a para-anchor application. Dacron, while not as stretchy as nylon, is an excellent shock absorber in these 100-600' lengths. However, from a practical standpoint, most people do not have a dedicated rode for their para-anchor and use a spare anchor rode, which is typically nylon. But we must all be aware that nylon has proven to be very vulnerable to failure in this application.
Regarding rode retrieval - in theory with our primary winches we can crank in 1.25" of rode/turn in slow gear and with a heavily loaded rode we can do 1 turn in 1.4 seconds. That means we can retrieve 300' of rode in 67 minutes. Our electric windlass can bring in the rode about 25% faster, or 45 minutes/300' BUT we run the risk of burning it out/damaging it with that sort of continuous load. Our actual retrieval times have come quite close to these theoretical times. It takes about 50% longer to retrieve (so 100 minutes/300' of rode) the series drogue or the para-anchor. With the series drogue, you need to be extra careful guiding the cones in and off the winch to prevent damaging them, and with the para-anchor because of higher cyclic loads over waves/swell and dealing with the para-anchor shrouds when it gets close to the boat. We have found you can winch the series drogues without damaging the cones but you cannot use a self tailer, so it's best to have someone grinding and someone else tailing (who also makes sure the cones go in and come off smoothly). Notes:
(1) This all assumes you want to bring your rode back in while it is still breezy (say 35kts). If you wait longer for the wind to drop more, it will of course be easier/faster.
(2) These retrieval speeds generally apply to the typical modern sized cruising boat (say 38'-53'). Above this size you really need either a strong hydraulic winch or to motor up to the rode, below this size the gear and loads are much smaller and you can often retrieve drogues by hand.
(3) The rode loads are quite cyclic. Your boat speed drops as you go up the back side of a wave and you get slack in the rode and can crank in faster, then you speed up as you go down a wave and the loads build and you crank slower.
(4) If you have your drogue on a bridle, you can quite easily take one leg of the bridle off the stern and bring it around to the bow, and then pull the warp in from the bow, perhaps using the motor. We don't do that for two reasons: (a) I much prefer to work in the cockpit than on the foredeck in those sort of conditions (big waves), and (b) I don't fancy trying to motor upwind into those sort of waves. It's quite a bit nicer to retrieve a rode while sitting comfortably and dry in the cockpit, than on a pitching and wet foredeck.
All the available storm tactics have pitfalls. None is a cure-all magic bullet. Its simply a matter of picking the best one for the specific conditions (which will evolve) and the specific boat. If the first one you try feels wrong, then try another. It is worth noting that all these storm tactics should be reserved for truly ugly conditions with large breaking waves. All of them are quite a bit of work. In a garden variety gale they are not necessary (for a typical cruising boat) and in fact are likely to cause additional trouble. Top of Page
As mentioned above, we generally think the para-anchor tactic the least useful because it prevents you from sailing away from the worst weather and is difficult to change/adapt as conditions change. The bridled para-anchor deployment approach is the most complex possible way to deploy the para-anchor, with the most points of potential failure and human error. Those are bad traits when fatigued in severe storm conditions. Virtually every crew we know who has tried the approach in real storm conditions has considered it a failure. So, we like this 'bridled' approach even less than the 'over-the bow' approach.
We believe the bridle approach violates three fundamental principles regarding breaking wave tactics.
(1) An essential guiding principle for surviving breaking waves is to keep either the bow or stern pointed into the waves. The bridle technique violates this principle by setting the boat up at about 50 degrees to the waves.
(2) An essential principle of para-anchors is that big ones are needed to keep the boat in place through big breaking waves. The bridle technique again violates this principle by (at least in the Pardey's technique) using a much smaller para-anchor. It is a simple fact of physics that a boat with its head 50 degrees off the waves hanging on a smaller para-anchor is more likely to roll than one with head directly into the waves on a bigger para-anchor - head off the waves means greater surface area exposed to the wave impact, smaller para-anchor does reduce immediate shock loads but it does so by allowing the bow to move backwards through the water increasing the likelihood of being rolled; the bridle solution spreads some of the para-anchor effort to the aft bridle leg reducing the force keeping the bow up. It can be argued that the extra risk is not a significant factor compared to the extra motion comfort and somewhat reduced shock loads, but in an absolute sense there is some amount of increased risk.
(3) An essential guiding principle of all heavy weather tactics is that they should be simple and easy to execute, difficult to mess up even when it's pitch black and raining, with waves washing over the deck and an extremely fatigued crew, and relatively easy to adapt to changing storm conditions. The bridled para-anchor approach is none of these things.
A core assumption of the 'bridled small para-achor' approach is that creating a 'slick' (e.g. turbulence in the water upwind of the boat caused by the hull and keel drifting to leeward) is a significant factor in stopping waves from breaking on the boat. We question this assumption. First it is essentially impossible to hold a vessel with exactly zero forward motion and thus actually directly behind any potential 'slick'. If the boat has even 1/2kt of forward drift, it will be moving 50'/minute. In which case the slick will angle aft and the boat will always be right at the forward edge of the slick. Thus a wave coming from directly downwind or forward of that will be able to reach the boat with minimal interference from the slick. Second, it is equally clear that the effect dissipates very quickly as it moves away from the hull. The effect is impossible to discern more than about 10' from the hull. It will certainly not have much effect on the really large breaking waves that are the true danger. John Neil, who likely has more miles and heavy weather experience on a 'modern' cruising boat (a Halberg Rassey 46) than anyone, agrees: "My experience (and it's a fair amount now) is that the entire 'slick' reducing breaking waves concept is not at all realistic".
Here is a great video of a real breaking wave (not just the more common breaking crest) that a hull slick would not have any significant effect on. In contrast we would consider most of the action in this video to be breaking crests, still dangerous to a sailboat but not the worst case breaking waves. The hull slick is just too near the boat and too narrow to affect a massive wave like that in the first video clip, which will already be breaking in a huge 30kt landslide of water by the time they hit the hull slick and often come sliding in at an angle different than the hull slick angle. Further the 'slick' will have zero affect on some of the most dangerous waves - those where two different wave trains become synchronized and form extremely steep pyramid-shaped waves and/or create 'bottomless troughs' - because these dangerous wave shapes are created by wave energy that runs deep underwater and is not affected by any surface 'slick'. These were the sort of waves identified as most dangerous in the Queen's birthday storm.
If the slick was as valuable a factor as suggested then lying a-hull, which creates an even wider slick than lying hove-to, would be an effective tactic rather than being the most dangerous possible technique. The para-anchor may potentially create turbulence at the right distance from the boat, but only with a shortish rode (e.g. 100' is about right but 300' is too far from the boat) and obviously a bigger para-anchor will create wider more effective turbulence than a smaller one. Interestingly, the slow speed steady state drift rate of the big and small para-anchor are in the same range (e.g. .5 - 1.5kts) in heavy weather. The extra drag of the bigger para-anchor comes into effect when a breaking wave actually hits, and prevents the boat from accelerating more effectively than the smaller one.
As a final practical point with the bridle approach - we have never found a chafe-free way to lead the bridle legs in over our toe rails. We also have concerns about engineering the bridle so it is strong enough for Hawk's expected loads (about 20,000lbs loading in the worst case breaking wave). The strongest available snatch block is not strong enough, so the bridle legs would have to be spliced and then tied or shackled to the end of the main rode. That would be strong enough but would make recovery even more difficult because we would have to work the splice/knot/shackle around the recovery winch.
While much controversy exists as to what actual parachute loads are in storm conditions, there is absolutely no question that worst case breaking wave loads are a high fraction of displacement. There are four ways to estimate these loads, all of which arrive at the same ballpark figure. The only reason there is any debate about how big the loads are, is that big breaking waves are, fortunately, extremely rare.
(1) The physics of a boat falling down a 45-foot near vertical breaking wave are very clear and very impressive. If you are skeptical about the existence of such waves take a look at the video footage of the 1998 Sydney to Hobart (the link is to a report on the storm; we have yet to find video footage on the web). Don Jordan’s web site is one of many that provide a good analysis of these loads and also has another great video of 60' ketch getting knocked down.
(2) Commercial vessel design and experience confirms this order of magnitude loading with big waves - in an article on new findings about big waves: "Most modern merchant vessels are designed to withstand about fifteen tons of pressure per square meter, but these unusual waves exert a pressure of about one hundred tons per square meter" and other testing has found common wave loading of about 100,000-170,000 lbs/sq meter for 7 seconds on static structures*. To return to our own practical experience. There are many many example of actual high wave loading but just to cite one - the 1,000-foot cruise ship Norwegian Dawn encountered a 70-foot wave that broke windows designed for 5 ton/sq meter loads up to the 10th floor.
(3) We have measured the steady-state loads on our smallest Galerider drogue at 3,500lbs (10% of displacement) in a static, non-breaking wave situation. Para-anchor loads will certainly be much higher and worst case breaking wave loads will additionally be much higher. Scaling this load by frontal surface area produces peak load estimates for our series drogue (150 cones) of approximately 10,700lbs and for a 12' dia. para-anchor (the bridle approach recommendation) of 41,000lbs (e.g. 100% of Hawk's actual cruising displacement). The physics are a bit more complex than a simple scaling, so this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but these are useful ballpark estimates for sizing equipment and attachment points (remember that you need to add a 2x-3x safety factor).
(4) Looking at the wave energy in a storm serious enough to require a drogue or para-anchor is another way to estimate the likely loads. To ballpark the absolute minimum peak load on the para-anchor, in a storm bad enough to make the para-anchor needed, take your 1 degree righting moment (2700ft-lbs for Hawk) x 60 degrees (generally a boat's angle of peak righting moment) / half beam (7' for Hawk) x .5 (nylon rode shock absorbing) = 12,000lbs for Hawk (40% of displacement). This is the minimum loading that you can expect in a storm bad enough it could roll your boat. It assumes that the boat is caught perfectly beam on to the waves, that the wave delivers only just exactly enough energy to capsize the boat and no more, and that the nylon rode acts as a perfect spring and averages out the entire wave load. If the waves don't have at least this much energy then they can't capsize the boat, even if she is lying ahull, and you really don't need to set the para-anchor. In a bad storm the peak energy will be much higher. An upper limit ballpark can be calculated from the case of a vessel falling off a 60' near vertical wave with a 400' nylon rode (properly sized for 15% stretch at a working load of 15% of breaking strength). In this case the peak load will be equal to 100% of the vessel's displacement. These are both rough calculations but they do bound the likely peak para-anchor loads between 40%-100% of vessel displacement, and we use halfway between them (e.g. 70%) in our calculations/equipment sizing.
We would only consider using a para-anchor in one situation: if too close to a lee shore to use our drogue and dismasted so we couldn't forereach and with a broken engine so we couldn't use the trawler tactic of powering into the waves. In that situation we would first try our series drogue and see if the drift rate is slow enough to keep us off the shore, if not we would put out the largest possible para-anchor off the bow. This would minimize leeway and be better and easier (in our opinion) than the smaller para-anchor/bridle technique. Honestly, if you are caught way too close to a lee shore, while dismasted and engineless, you have probably lost your boat no matter what technique you use. Top of Page
*(Note: Recent scientific work on big waves is at http://www.icms.org.uk/archive/meetings/2005/roguewaves/sci_prog.html#Links_to_presentations).
Normally, with two of us on deck, we use the trysail halyard. It has an extra long tail specifically for this purpose. It leads down through a clutch on the mast, to a block on deck, and forward to the windlass rope drum. Beth tails while pushing the up button. To let me down she comes back to the mast, wraps the halyard around one of the mast winches, opens the clutch, and lets the halyard out, sliding around the winch drum. If I am alone, I use mountain climbing hardware, specifically one ascender + one gri-gri + 2 foot loops + a climbing harness. I hoist a low stretch 10mm line on one of the halyards, hook the ascender and gri-gri to the line, hook my harness and foot loops to the ascender and gri-gri, and start climbing. To come down, I take the ascender off the line and use the gri-gri to rappel. Top of Page
This is an example of a fundamental disagreement we have with the safety experts' approach to safety. We do not like to rely on 'single-purpose, untestable, magic boxes' and have not carried a liferaft on either of our voyages/boats. People say, "Well, I may need a raft and there is no harm in putting one on board." I think both elements of that statement reflect poor logic. Having the raft aboard does bring significant downsides and the likelihood the raft will be useful is much smaller than many other very low risks that we all just let go by in our lives without undue concern or special precaution. (note: there is an excellent essay 'The psychology of security", directly useful when considering safety equipment and procedures.)
Downside analysis: The core downside is that if you don't have a raft you will be much more focused and intent on saving the boat, and at least to us, that is important. We are willing to make the trade-off involved, of a higher likelihood of saving the boat with also a higher chance of dying if we fail to save the boat. I think that many people in their hearts don't believe they need to make this trade-off, that they can have it both ways - an initial complete commitment to saving the boat and then the raft as a backup if they fail. However, I think they are fooling themselves - they will in fact give the situation more effort and focus if they feel they have no choice/no raft, and give up more quickly with less effort if they have the raft. In the pre-raft days, people made some pretty impressive repairs when they had no choice - Tzu Hang is perhaps the best documented but there were many many others.
Beyond that the raft may prevent you from saving your boat if the boat starts taking on water. Below I relate one example but we know at least three first hand cases where it was impossible to find the source of incoming water because people took the time to launch their rafts rather than immediately going below to save the boat. It's almost impossible to find the source of inrushing water once there is 2' of water in the boat. Secondarily, you could have taken that money and effort and put in a watertight bulkhead or foam filled crash box or stronger rudder, or fire-proofed your interior or pulled/refit all your thru-hulls and stuffing box, etc. Finally, no matter how often people are coached to 'only get in the raft when you have to step up to it' that's simply not how the psychology of emergencies work. People panic and they are not thinking clearly and history has clearly shown, given the option, they often leave perfectly good boats for the less good raft.
Upside analysis: The real frequency of well-found boats sinking rapidly at sea (hitting whales and containers, etc. and going down so quickly they can not be saved by a diligent crew) are very, very rare (rudders and dagger boards are lost with some frequency but do not usually result in rapid sinking). The likelihood is certainly less than that you will be hit by lightning. Secondly, if you end up in one of those rare cases, our (admittedly small sample) data suggests that only about 1 time out of 3 will the raft actually work (even if it's 50% it's not so good). Finally, if you are in one of those rare cases and the raft does works, much of the time it will not protect you very well (big seas and/or cold water) or it will not help because you are in a part of the ocean with low vessel traffic/no rescue capability. So, it certainly happens occasionally but the odds the thing will actually save your life are really, really low - probably lower than your winning the jackpot lottery. That's the upside.
As one thinks of the few cases where the raft was in fact essential to a well found boat, you should not forget the other cases where people have gotten in the raft when they should not have, and the cases when the boat could have been saved if they had not fussed with the raft first, and the cases where the raft resources and effort would have been better directed elsewhere. You can't have the first cases without the others cases. The important thing is to see if the net balance is positive or negative, and we believe the facts suggest its pretty clearly the latter.
In additional detail:
First, liferafts, like much of the available 'safety equipment', especially the single purpose 'sealed magic boxes' do not work very well. In NZ about 20 cruising boats got together to get their rafts repacked. Before repacking they all pulled their inflation cords and about 1/3 did not inflate, 1/3 inflated but promptly deflated and only 1/3 inflated and stayed inflated (this after the rafts were on average only two years at sea) . Even when the rafts inflate properly, they are dangerous at sea. In each of the well-documented storms - the Fastnet, the Sydney to Hobart, and the Queen's Birthday storm - crew would have been much safer staying with their boats than getting in their rafts. A high fraction of those getting in rafts were injured or died while 80% of the abandoned boats were later found floating perfectly safely. Rafts are often hard to deploy. Many are simply too heavy and difficult for a single person to quickly get over the side, and many are mounted near propane tanks and gasoline jugs, which will destroy the raft in case of fire or explosion - one common case for abandoning ship, and the one where the raft is most critical to survival. Finally, in the cold waters where Hawk has predominately been cruising, we are almost certain to die of hypothermia in a raft before being rescued.
Second we are committed to saving our boat and sailing her home. We believe that even if the raft works it actually reduces overall vessel safety. Quite a high fraction of the 20% of boats that are not later found after being abandoned could have been saved if the crew had stayed on board. A classic example is a boat we knew that was rapidly taking on water - through a blown stuffing box seal but they did not know it at the time. They looked down below, saw water rising and took time to inflate the raft as a precaution. By the time they got below to try to find the leak there was so much water they could not locate the inrush and the boat sank, fortunately in shallow water. It was salvaged and the cause was determined to be the blown stuffing box, which would have been easy to locate and fix if they had done it immediately and not been distracted by the raft. We feel we are much more likely to be safe and save the boat if we are fully committed to saving the boat than if we have half our attention focusing on a raft.
Third, purely from an 'investment' point of view there are tools with much more bang for the buck in keeping us and the boat safe - bigger anchors, stronger hull, watertight bulkheads fore and aft, tools and materials to effect repair (rigging, rudder and hull skin especially), fire retardant materials in the boat and hull, sealed locker not only for propane but also for outboard and outboard gas and for any paint/solvents, easy to use boom preventers and pole control gear, proper charts of all potential back-up landfalls, extensive medical kit, weather forecasting equipment and knowledge, sat phone, etc. Perhaps most importantly, we believe that multiple ways to minimize fatigue (ranging from a hard dodger for less fatiguing watchkeeping to improved sleep cycles practice/knowledge to amphetamines for short intense periods like making landfall after several days of gales) is critical to our safety. Fatigue is the number one contributing factor in bad situations and the number one hindrance in effectively resolving them when they occur. Even if you do believe a raft will actually be effective, risk-based analysis says you should fully implement all these areas before the raft becomes a priority. (Note there has not ever been a case of any vessel in the history of either the Bermuda or Transpac races sinking and requiring the use of a raft to wait for rescue *footnote below* - so no use in several thousand hard-sailed ocean passages).
We do carry two dry suits (and an inflatable dinghy), which we primarily use for hull/prop/zinc maintenance and for helming in truly foul weather. But in addition to these uses would also be much more effective for temporarily 'abandoning ship' (say to get to shore from a burning boat in a remote anchorage - which happened to friends of ours in Chile) than a raft. They require no inflation, offer better protection from hypothermia, and are stowed away from propane and dinghy gas, etc. This sort of dual purpose equipment, which we can regularly use, inspect and maintain is a significantly better approach in our opinion than essentially sealed magic boxes that we can only hope will work when we need them. I was talking with the skipper of a Transpac race boat about safety issues and stunned to discover that, in order to save weight, the only tools they carried were the bow men's two leathermen (and a required spar banding tool) and they had no spare screws/bolts/plywood. This inability to repair even small defects seems unseaman-like in the extreme, but I acknowledge it may be necessary to be competitive in that elite racing environment.
On a related topic, we similarly believe that the US SAILING Prescription to ISAF Offshore Special Regulation 5.02.05 ("A harness and lifejacket shall be worn when on deck a) between the hours of sunset and sunrise and b) when alone on deck and c) when reefed and d) when the true wind speed is above 25 knots or above and e) when the visibility is less than 1 nautical mile") also actually reduces overall crew safety. It clearly does not reflect the actual practice of most experienced seamen. This is because it unnecessarily restricts free and fast movement on deck and thus hinders good and fast sail handling procedures. Being able to speedily move around the deck and quickly resolve potential problems before they become too large will eliminate/reduce more safety difficulties than being clipped in all the time. Recent Volvo feedback has shown that current ORC harnesses are too clumsy for practical long duration usage, and too slow to put on when the off-watch needs to come immediately on deck. The important, time-tested seamanship rule is 'one hand for the boat and one hand for yourself'. The better rule is to clip-in in when you simply cannot hold on: (a) When working with both hands, particularly when standing up (for example at the mast or head stay), then it is good practice to clip-in during unstable conditions because you don't have 'one hand for yourself'. (b) If your work station is being washed with green water, which could dislodge you even while holding on. That is the experienced seaman's practice.
Regarding the lifejacket side of this rule, it is stunning how ineffective life jackets appear to be in the real world. In the official US Coast Guard statistics for coastal usage there is essentially no statistical difference between the percentage of boaters wearing life jackets and those drowning who were wearing life jackets (The latest 2006 data shows identical results) - both are 9.3% for adult boaters excluding PWCs on an 8-year average. This means that the life jackets have in fact been almost completely useless in actual practice. If life jackets were effective then the first percentage should be many times higher than the second. This can be at least partially explained by one observation: Virtually no life jacket will hold the users' head out of the water entirely by itself, and so they will not save anyone who is unconscious, extremely fatigued or drunk (drunk while boating study).
Fourth, we fundamentally accept that life has risks. We know that all risks cannot be completely eliminated. We know we will die sometime. We do not let this deter us from living our dreams. We strongly object to the fear based marketing/propaganda efforts, applied to everything from cell phones to water makers, that lead you to believe you will get sick and/or die unless you have one. Following expert advice, one could spend one's entire life and resources minimizing already low risks. That is a pale life. A seaman goes to sea with a realistic assessment of the risks and with the sure knowledge that the seaman's life is worth pursuing despite the risks. He has practiced plans to deal with the most likely situations and a foundation of skills and basic tools to tackle the unlikely. He knows that with a hammer, a knife, and a rope he can overcome most situations.
This is a distinctly personal choice, based on our own assessment of the likely true risks and how to most effectively minimize them. We rarely even mention this decision to others, as we do not want others to base such an important decision on our reasoning and logic. I do believe the thought process should be undertaken with all safety equipment by evaluating the following questions: How likely is the actual risk compared to other risks? Is the equipment well made & will it actually work (has it consistently worked well for others)? Can I personally test it out and see if how it works and refine my procedure or is it essentially a mystery box that I just hope will work? Does it distract either our attention or money from a better solution?
In case one thinks this is 'only a racing issue' - race rules/mindset and the racing safety committees do clearly slop over into the cruising community and into cruising boat design. I think that the current rescue mindset is being driven from the racing community into the cruising community (typical racers' comments: "100 other fully crewed boats ready to come to your rescue", "never out of helicopter range"). It's a major pain today to get a boat approved for the Bermuda race - with all that effort we should at least focus on the right fundamental things, and it would improve all boats not just racing machines. I simply think the pendulum has swung way, way too far toward the abandon ship/rescue and gizmos and away from boat strength, design, watch keeping, etc. I think, we, the sailors, need to challenge the safety community more about the quality and reliability and actual usefulness of their rules/products. I would like to see more focus on basic structures, fire retardant construction and watchkeeping (protection in the cockpit work stations from solid green water, sleep cycles, etc.).
Our safety focus/priorities are:
(1) Primary focus is on avoiding problems in the first place - stronger rudders and keel attachments, better work station protection, and fire avoidance
(2) Second focus on tools, materials and skills to fix problems rather than call for rescue when a problem has happened - significant inventory of tools and materials and spare parts & avoid safety products/designs produced simply to satisfy racing rules and identify emergency parts designs/jury rigs that have proven they can be installed and actually work in bad conditions (cassette rudders, spring starter motors, boom gooseneck strong enough/wide enough range of vertical motion to allow boom to be pulled vertical and used as quick jerry rig, etc)
(3) General dislike for single purpose, sealed & untestable, ‘safety’ gear - find multipurpose alternatives that can be used, inspected and tested every day
*footnote* Two boats have been lost in Bermuda Races: ADRIANA to a fire in 1932, and ELDA in 1956 when she ran up on Bermuda’s reef. In the Transpac, in 1975 non-entrant ATTORANTE sank and her crew was rescued by SWIFTSURE. In 1981 Transpac, a racing catamaran broke apart the first night, and her six-man crew was rescued by WESTWARD. MEDICINE MAN sank on the reef 100 yards short of the finish in '89. And in 1999 the crew of DOUBLE BULLET was airlifted off the capsized catamaran by a Coast Guard helicopter. This suggests the priority lesson learned for monohulls should be 'don't hit the land at the end of the passage' (navigation skills, proper charts and fatigue management) and 'stow your combustibles carefully and check your fire extinguishers'; and for multihulls 'in order to win the boat must be strong enough to finish and sailed carefully enough to stay upright'. Top of Page
We believe foreign languages are clearly the number one priority. This will make cruising in foreign countries more fun, educational and much easier. Which languages will depend on your specific cruise plan, but French and Spanish are the most useful for a general world cruise.
From a technical standpoint, weather, diesel engines and emergency medical care would be the top three topics. The latter two topics are well suited to class room/seminar instruction, but I have found it much easier to learn about the weather while actually out cruising than sitting in a classroom.
Sailing/passagemaking courses are helpful in three regards. (1) We think it is important that the mate be a full partner in the endeavor, able to handle the boat and get her safely back to port if the skipper becomes injured or incapacitated. So the mate should take whatever basic sailing and navigation courses are needed to make this a reality and a 'passage course' is a useful 'final exam' in this process. (2) Even for experienced sailors, it is useful to see how another experienced skipper does things. Typically, cruisers stick to their own boat and crew and rarely sail with other people/boats, unlike racers. (3) The passage course can help build your confidence level by reducing some of the mystery of offshore sailing , but cruising double-handed in your own boat will be such a different experience from a sailing course with a skipper and other crew in a school boat it less relevant in this regard than might be expected.
Round the buoy racing does not seem to have much carry-over value for cruising but point-to-point/passagemaking racing does, especially with a strong/competent captain/crew. Top of Page
We have a boom preventer set most of the time we are offshore, primarily to stabilize the boom in ocean swell, which helps keep the sail full and minimizes wear on the gooseneck. We also use it when running to prevent accidental jibes.
We have a tang welded through the boom near the aft end, sticking out both sides, with eyes in both sides (you could also simply through bolt two pad eyes onto the boom). We have Spectra (10mm single braid) lines spliced to each of these eyes (one line on either side of the boom) with spliced thimbles on the forward end of the lines. The forward ends stow on cleats on the front end of the boom. Then on each side deck, we have a line (12mm spectra double braid, with a Dacron cover to allow a clutch to grip it more easily) which runs from a cockpit winch through a clutch on the toerail just outside the cockpit forward to a block on the toerail (just outside the chain plates) and ends in a spliced snap shackle (Tylaska trigger shackle, which can be released under load if necessary). To set the preventer, we take the line off the cleat on the boom, and clip the snap shackle on the deck line to the thimble on the boom line, and pull tight from the cockpit, closing the clutch so we can then free up the winch.
Some people put the block on the toerail further forward, to get a better angle on the boom. We don't do that because then the preventer line is led sharply around the stays in an accidental jybe, and because placement by the 'chainplate' works perfectly fine. And some people put a ‘fuse’ (a lashing of light line designed to be stronger that a jibe shock load but break before the boom breaks) somewhere in the preventer system to save the boom from breaking if it dips into the water. That works fine if the fuse is the correct strength and inspected frequently, but we don't like the idea the fuse/preventer could let go when we are unaware.
Some people use more elastic line (nylon) in their preventers in order to better soak up the shock of a jibe. We tried that but found first that the elasticity allowed a lot of boom motion in a big swell - creating extra wear and chafe - and second that with low stretch line there was not that big a shock in a jibe because the boom does not move at all and thus does not build up any momentum. So, we prefer low stretch preventers. Top of Page
Flares are required by the USCG and we carry the minimum required number. We do carry the more expensive SOLAS flares as they are significantly brighter/more visible than the cheaper USCG approved flares. However, we have seen both SOLAS parachute and smoke flares from a distance of 3 miles and it is shocking how quickly they burn out and how hard it is to identify where the boat firing them is. We don't hold much hope that our flares will be seen if we have to use them.
We also carry a 406mhz EPIRB. It's an older non-GPS unit. If we bought a new one we would definitely get one with a built in GPS and we would look for one which had easy/inexpensive battery replacement. Many units have to be sent to an 'authorized service center' in order to change the battery - for a world cruiser this can require an international express shipment (both ways) which is expensive and often involves customs hassles. The beauty of the EPIRB is that (a) it can be activates quickly by flipping one switch, (b) they are (mostly) robustly built and water resistant, and (c) the signal automatically goes directly to the SAR centers. Unfortunately 97% of 406mhz epirb activations are false/accidental alerts, which makes the SAR authorities reluctant to send out SAR assets until the EPIRB signal is confirmed to be a valid emergency.
However, we have been directly involved in three EPIRB incidents and many cruisers vastly overrate how effective EPIRBs are. EPIRB signals and SARs (Search And Rescue) across country borders (particularly in 3rd world countries where very few people speak English) tend to be very discouraging experiences. The communication barrier almost inevitably fouls things up so the usually very limited SAR resources are not properly deployed. In the one case where the boat in trouble also had a sat phone the incident went smoothly because the skipper could explain the exact situation and continue to communicate as the rescue effort got underway. In the two situations where there was no communication beyond the EPIRB, there was no effective search and no rescue (one boat was lost with all hands and the other 'self-rescued'). In all three cases, the boat's main electrical system was out so the SSB/HF radio's were not useful . Click here for an overview on the EPIRB/SAR process.
Thus, we believe adding a sat phone (Iridium) with a spare battery to the ditch kit is extremely valuable, and if we could only afford one or the other we would choose the sat phone over the EPIRB. These phones have many other useful functions beyond emergency messages. Also with periodic usage you will know if they are working while the EPIRBs are essentially black boxes. Also with a sat phone, you can maintain contact long after an EPIRB batteries have died. You do need to make sure the phone batteries are fully charged before each passage.
We do have both a fixed DSC VHF and a handheld VHF. The fixed unit will obviously go out if the ship's electrical system is out. The handheld does not have much range. Also we have discovered that most Third World fishing boats carry CB radios rather than VHF (CBs are cheaper than marine spec VHF), so are not listening to VHF16.
Finally, we have a Sat C system, which is viewed as obsolete but we like it for three reasons: (a) it produces free weather (Navtext) twice a day, (b) you can make an immediate emergency signal like an EPIRB by pressing two buttons together, but unlike the EPIRB, if you have time you can include a text message to explain the details of your situation and you can stay in touch with the search center, and (c) the units are very robustly made. However, if the ship's main electrical system is out this system will be inoperative.
If you get into trouble, especially in non-English speaking third world waters:
(1) Stay with the boat and do not get off into the life raft until the boat truly sinks out from under you.
(2) Set off your EPIRB but don't count on an effective search as a result.
(3) If you have a sat-phone, call your home country's SAR center (generally known as "Rescue Coordination Centers" or RCCs) and (if you have it) the local waters SAR center (put them in speed dial before you leave - click here for contact pdfs: USCG contacts, International contacts) and explain your situation, and call a friend (also put in speed dial) ashore who you trust to carry the ball pushing for an effective search. MOST IMPORTANTLY (4) Keeping yourself/getting yourself out of trouble is the only reliable solution.
If you are the shore contact for someone who lets off an EPIRB:
(1) When the EPIRB agency calls you to confirm the boat's general location, you should get from them the exact location (lat/log) and time of the first EPIRB signal fix and the location and time of the last fix (when the EPIRB batteries ran down) or the latest fix (if it is still transmitting). This will give you some indication of whether the vessel is disabled and drifting or still under power/sail, and help immensely in more precisely defining the optimal search area/pattern.
(2) Getting a cruising boat that is on the scene helps tremendously in coordinating a search and rescue. The WinLink position map is a very efficient way to identify cruising boats on the scene, who can then potentially be communicated with via e-mail (call sign @ winlink.org).
(3) Post messages at www.boatwatchnet.org/ and the 'Distress call/missing yacht" section of www.cruiserlog.com/forums/ . This will get the ham nets involved in helping contact/search for the vessel in trouble.
(4) Communications with non-English speaking local SAR people can be difficult. It is useful to involve both your country's embassy and a local yacht club in the country where the SAR is underway. They will both tend to have senior government contacts and be able to communicate in the local language.
(5) Finally, if at all possible, you should get a designated point of contact/communication in both your domestic SAR agency (who will handle the initial EPIRB signals) and the foreign SAR agency (who will manage the actual search and rescue operation). This helps ensure that new information is communicated and necessary actions are followed through. A helpful site with additional collected information of SAR contacts, procedures and resources is: www.rcc-net.org/ .
One thing to keep in mind is that in many 3rd World countries you are asking them to do far more to find you than they would to find their own lost citizens! In many cases, doing anything would be unusual. The imperative is: Stay out of trouble, and get yourself out of trouble.
These recommendations are from someone directly involved in SAR:
"I'm one of the guys who comes to look for you when things go bad, and here's what I like to see.
(1) EPIRBS: GPS-enabled preferred. However the best way to have it is GPS-enabled and have a Sat phone on board. Light your EPIRB, then call the nearest RCC and say, 'Yes, that's my EPIRB at this Lat/Long and this is the nature of my distress' etc. Your visual/radar horizon is only 12-14 miles, RCC might have assistance closer than you realize. Don't be shy, if you're in trouble, get busy!
(2) Have a handheld VHF in your ditchbag on 16 that can last more than 8 hrs talk time. Once I've established comms with you, stay off it until I call you back. I'm talking to everyone under the sun on your behalf on other radios, and you talking to me only uses up your depletable/unrechargable battery.
(3) Flares. If I'm circling you, I see you, don't fire them in my direction. Yep, I did say that.
(4) If I call in a Helicopter for evac, we will not be hoisting you out of your raft/sailboat. Be prepared to jump in the water. Rafts get blown around by rotorwash, and sailboats have masts/rigging to contend with. If you're worried about critters in the sea, Helicopters scare the crap out of them. You'll only be in there for a few minutes anyway.
(5) Do not light off your PLB when you're EPIRB is operating. Confusing signals. Even if your EPIRB is floating 1/2 mile from you, we will generally find you through searching. In addition, if your EPIRB has been running for two days and we've found nothing, generally we'll start to scale back the search. But if, after that time, we see a new PLB light up, that's pretty convincing evidence that there's survivors out there and the search will continue. (Here's a report on PLB's in light aircraft)
(6) 121.5. We're doing away with that frequency. All of our planes are equipped to home it. We're not replacing anything real soon. Nonetheless, 406 is where it's at.
(7) PLB's alone may elicit a coastal (not necessarily airborne) response by regional SAR assets. PLB's were designed for hikers not mariners.
8) Do not plan to be picked up immediately. Plan to survive in the raft for at least 24 hrs. Get training for this, if you're a skipper, your crew has placed their trust in you. Live up to their expectations." Top of Page
On the Silk voyage, we had a simple answer - we always carried a full collection of original paper charts. But over the past ten years we have gradually moved away from doing that. Now we do three things:
(1) Buy electronic charts for the route (usually a C-Map chart chip for our chart plotter, but sometimes a MaxSea CD if the coverage/value is better).
(2) I still buy original color paper charts for landfall (usually an approach chart and a detailed chart) so when we are tired and it's dark we can have an easy to read chart on durable paper right in the cockpit.
(3) We do usually buy the Bellingham small size chart kits for the route area. I really don't like using the Bellingham charts (or any B&W copies). They are hard to read at night, it's easy to overlook something and make a mistake, and the Bellingham kits are US only charts which have big holes in foreign coverage. But their value is hard to beat. Top of Page
These lines are used to tie into small coves when there is not enough room to swing at anchor in the normal way. Typically you drop a bow anchor, back upwind into the cove while letting out anchor rode and when close to shore, take two stern lines to trees and/or rocks ashore.
This is a technique adapted to the specific conditions in Chile & the Antarctic, where the main harbors are quite deep and exposed to violent winds, but there are often very small but very well-protected coves around the edges of the harbors. It is certainly not necessary to use shore lines in every harbor in Chile, but there are a couple stretches in the canals where your anchorage options will all be uncomfortable and unappealing if you do not have shore lines. This technique is not widely used in the Northern Hemisphere, but if you have the lines and know the technique it can be a useful in specific situations (we shore tied a couple times in Scotland, and it is used on the west coast of Norway and Sweden and in some deep harbors in the Pacific Northwest).
Stern tying can be done with a single shore line if the wind is sure to stay directly over the stern. But it is safer and more stable to use two stern lines if the wind is shifty and could move to one of the quarters. If the wind could shift to the beam it is best to then put out a bow line to shore, and if it could shift all the way to the bow it is best to have two bow lines to either shore. We used more than two lines only a handful of times in our last traverse of the Chilean canals but were glad to have the extra lines and slept better when we used them.
We in fact carry a fifth extra long (220m) shore line in case we need to reach a long long way to find something strong to tie to.
So, the bottom line is that one line is pretty essential, two will make you comfortable in most situations and four or five will allow you to be bulletproof in almost all situations.
The boats permanently in Chile tend to have line spools mounted on deck. We do not use spools as we do not want them permanently on deck and they are heavy and difficult to stow. Instead we use tall, narrow mesh bags with wire hoops sewn into the opening. The mesh allows the line to dry and the wire hoop holds the mouth open so one person can easily stuff the line in. The tall/narrow shape with the opening on the top allows the line to run out without tangling (it will often tangle if stowed in the more normal duffle bag configuration with the opening on the side). Pictures of line bags (pic1, pic2).
Note: These lines can also be used when going thru the Panama canal (where four long lines are required) and for Med-mooring. Top of Page
We have two typical motoring scenarios - first if we are in low latitude (the tropics) or weather pattern (big stable high pressure) where there are no big lows about to jump on us, we have no minimum speed. We motor when the sails start to slam. This usually happens in about 4kts of true wind in flatish water and 7kts with a bigish swell. In really flat water we will just sit becalmed - we did this for 10 days near the Galápagos Islands even though we knew from the radio net that if we motored 24 hours south we would get wind. If there is enough wind but it is dead behind our course, we will steer up to 60 degrees off course to get on a jybe with enough wind to fill the sails, hopefully heading toward the direction where the wind will fill in.
However, if we are in stormier latitudes, and on a short enough passage that we have plenty of fuel, we will typically turn the motor on when we drop below 4kts of boat speed, just to try to minimize our exposure to storms. We typically motor at 6kts at relatively low rpms to minimize fuel consumption and noise.
When motor sailing, and the mainsail is still slamming back and forth, we typically will drop the halyard down 2 feet or so. This seems to stabilize the boat while minimizing the shock loading/leach slamming.
There are three main things that can delay when you need to turn on your motor. (1) is an easy to set boom preventer, which will stabilize the boom and mainsail and keep it from slamming back and forth. We have a preventer set almost all the time we are at sea. (2) Is an easy to use light air sail (spinnaker or Code zero) that you are willing/comfortable flying at night. (3) A willingness to sail off course (to get a wind angle to keep the sails full) and to settle in and enjoy sailing slowly. (Top of Page)
Cruising boats should carry all chain rode and should use a snubber at all times. The snubber adds some elasticity to the rode to reduce shock loading and take the load off the anchor windless (reducing wear on an important and expensive piece of gear) and puts it onto a cleat.
There are four common approaches for attaching the snubber line to the chain. We have tried all four approaches and still use three in different situations.
After much experimenting, the approach we like best and normally use is a simple chain hook. We originally spliced the snubber line directly to the chain hook but discovered that the steel casting process left a sharp casting mold edge along the hook which chafed/cut thru the snubber line over time. With a stainless steel hook you could file that edge down smooth but I have been using galvanized hooks (can't get stainless ones in the remote parts we have been cruising) and they would rust badly if filed. For a while we shackled the line to the hook but the shackle added weight and bulk and recently we have tied them together with a spectra lashing, which is light and does not seemed to chafe on the sharp casting edge. The chain hook goes on the chain easily and quickly and comes off easily and quickly. In fact it almost comes off too easily as it can potentially drop right off the chain if the wind goes completely dead - but you can prevent that by always hanging a big loop of chain over it (attach the chain hook and the let out a lot of chain so a big loop of chain is hanging on the side away from the load/anchor).
We have just bought a new Wichard designed stainless chain hook that has a spring loaded pin that locks the hook over the chain. It solves the 'hook falling off the chain' problem - we are experimenting with it to see how reliable and easy it is to operate 'in the real world'. Since we started using it, we have had some reports of other cruisers bending this wichard hook in 40kts and we have noticed on ours that the little spring loaded pin is easily bent. So, my initial reaction is that the design is a nice idea but it may be too lightly built for real full-time anchoring. But we are still using it and getting more experience.
We also have an ABI snubber plate. It has two snubber lines (the same length) shackled to the two plate holes. We take these two snubber lines thru the mooring line fairleads on either side of the bow and to the bow cleats (with the chain running off the centerline roller and between the two lines). Because of the extra strength and reliability of the dual snubber lines, we do occasionally (perhaps 3 times a year) use this snubber, if we are expecting really strong winds (perhaps 50kts or more), but it is more clumsy than the simple chain hook.
Sometimes when expecting strong winds and not wanting to mess with the ABI plate, we use the normal chain hook - attach it and let out the chain and get it all set - and then put a 'back-up' snubber line on the chain by simply rolling hitching a second line to the chain. This is easy and secure because the rolling hitch does not get loaded (unless the main snubber breaks) and so does not jam tight and is thus easy to untie.
The fourth approach, which we do not use is a snap hook thru the chain. Mechanically I do not like these as their working loads are quite low.
This does raise an interesting point, which is that we have been using a 10mm piece of climbing line (about 7000lb breaking strength) on our chain hook and it has never broken or let go. That is much smaller line than normally recommended for anchor line it has proven to be more than strong enough. I like the climbing line (static rappelling line) because it is constructed with a chafe resistant polyester cover and a shock absorbing nylon core - a construction you don't find in the marine market. (Top of Page)
Sweeping it off with a broom works very well if the snow is very dry, but will not move wet snow very well. Some other cruisers recommended using a plastic dust pan (as a scoop/shovel) and that is now our preferred solution for wet snow. The plastic dust pan will not damage deck hardware, is cheap and easy to stow, and works surprising well. Some friends running a super yacht use real plastic bladed snow shovels but our dust pan actually works better and the bigger shovels are clumsy around the deck hardware. Its useful to get the snow off the decks as soon as possible, because it becomes very slippery and hard to remove if it melts a little and then refreezes into ice. (Top of Page)