Click for Westport Click for Llebroc Click for Abeking Click for Northern Lights Click for JetForums

Need help with a rogue 108' Sunseeker

Discussion in 'Sunseeker Yacht' started by C_Spray, Jul 8, 2009.

You need to be registered and signed in to view this content.
  1. C_Spray

    C_Spray New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    Port Deposit, MD
    I hate to make a first post along these lines, but a group of my friends were involved in a frightening experience as the result of a massive wake from the 108' Sunseeker "Sea-Doo for Dad" in Chesapeake on the C&D canal on July 5. There was considerable chaos and moderate damage to a number of boats and people, but the owner refused to stop when chased down and confronted. There are details on OffshoreOnly, SeriousOffshore and the Chesapeake section of BoaterEd, but I do not want to post inappropriate links here.

    The bottom line is that we are having trouble identifying the owner of this vessel, and it is registered in Georgetown, CI and flying a Canadian flag. While the state police are working with the USCG, the boat is working its way rapidly up the US coast (last seen in Newport, RI last night), and may be in Canadian waters by the end of today.

    Any help in (legally) idenifying the owner of this vessel would be appreciated. Bombardier/SeaDoo do not believe it to be one of their employees, and want their name removed.

    Thanks in advance from all of us!
  2. K1W1

    K1W1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,379
    Location:
    My Office
    Hi,

    If the USCG ( I assume having these guys involved makes it a federal govt thing)and State Police are on the case I am sure they have the connections to ask the CISR who owns the boat and to trace the beneficial Owner of the holding Company.

    I am also surprised that if the boat is spotted elsewhere up the coast the USCG doesn't have the resources to stop it outright.

    If it has Georgetown CI on the back it should really be flying a defaced Ensign as it's main flag and a US one as a courtesy flag, not a Canadian one.

    Looks like he might have turned off his tracking device: http://aprs.fi/static/?call=954990382

    This is the MMSI No for the boat 954990382
  3. bluellama

    bluellama New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Location:
    1000 Islands
    C Spray, Are there more pictures online, other than the ones on OSO, BoatersEd and SOS?
    None of those pictures show a Canadian Flag.
    The Cayman Islands flag looks sort of like the Ontario flag.

    Hopefully this whole incident reaches a satisfactory resolution.

    Attached Files:

  4. Ken Bracewell

    Ken Bracewell Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    Somewhere Sunny
    I don't think that is accurate. I typed our MMSI number into that site and it has our last position as in the Chesapeake (which we left several weeks ago).
  5. C_Spray

    C_Spray New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    Port Deposit, MD
    A couple of updates:

    1: It was indeed displaying the CAYMAN flag, not the Canadian flag. This further diminishes the likelihood that anyone from Bombardier/SeaDoo is involved.

    2: http://www.marinetraffic.com/AIS/shipdetails.aspx?MMSI=954990382 is a better web site for vessel information, and seems to indicate that the vessel is at or near Casey's Marina in Newport RI. The "aprs" site is not up to date.

    3: Photos from Baltimore the day before (enlargement of Flikr photo attached) and eyewitness reports from the incident and ensuing pursuit indicate there were a number of guests/non-crew onboard. That doesn't mean that the owner was onboard, but you can draw your own conclusions.

    Thank you all for your help so far. We're closing in...

    Attached Files:

  6. Bamboo

    Bamboo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    Palm Beach, FL
    Nearly every post on the site that mentions "no wake" signs say they are sorely lacking. It seems to be changing from go ahead until you see a no wake sign to slow all the time fearful of those screaming NO WAKE NO WAKE all up and down the east coast. Not to forgive or condone the act, but there seems to be an awful lot of howling with little facts gathered (rich assh&^e, stupid captain... how do you know it was the capt flipping the people off? Do you know the capt was driving? How do you know the "rich azz" was on board? Proof he turned off his tracking?) Of course there are serious incidents (and this seems serious- but proof of malicious intent is still lacking), but those are drown out by the millions of people who think a boat is a condo that floats and nothing should spill or magazines get messed up.

    Flame suit on.
  7. K1W1

    K1W1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,379
    Location:
    My Office
    I posted this based upon what I found when looking online,

    Looks like he might have turned off his tracking device: http://aprs.fi/static/?call=954990382

    the last shown position was well south of where the previous posts reported the boat to have been seen. If you thought you were being tracked by someone wouldn't you turn off your transponder?

    It has since been posted that the source I quoted is not as up to date as another one for which a link was provided by the poster.

    Why is that? Is your boat that close to bursting into flames?
  8. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    11,214
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    The east coast is definitely getting to be a long, slooooow ride. That said, nobody over about 40' should be on plane in an area like the C & D. Forget the trawlers that don't want to rock. You've got barges that can be pushed off and kids fishing on the rocks at the banks that can be washed off, plus little runabouts that could be swamped. RECKLESS.
  9. Pascal

    Pascal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    what's odd is that when east bound you first come across the area where the canal headquarters are located with numerous tugs. The No Wake signs are easy to see as if anyone would wonder about acceptable wake.

    The marina and docks affected are right after the CD docks so either the guy didn't slow down for the clearly marked NWZ or got back on plane.

    no excuse.

    i run up and down the coast with a 70 footer, mostly inside. I am constantly watching my wake and on the look out for boats, docks or whatever that could be affected. It's no fun, but that's the way it is. take it or leave it (outside)
  10. YES!

    YES! Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    Sarasota, FL
    No Signs Required

    The law is simple and straightforward, "You are responsible for your wake," period.
  11. Ken Bracewell

    Ken Bracewell Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    Somewhere Sunny
    Pilotage

    Maybe I am wrong, but wouldn't a 108' Sunseeker be greater than 100 tons? If so he was also required to have a pilot from Baltimore to Cape May.
  12. Bamboo

    Bamboo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    934
    Location:
    Palm Beach, FL
    When posting what could be a controversial post many folks will say flame suit on... knowing the blistering heat that others will blast on them. I find it strange the people will find or buy property where boats go fast then complain when they go fast. If you buy a house near the airport did you expect the airplanes to suddenly become noiseless? If you bought a house near the dump will it start to smell good? While this is NOT a case of whining, there is way to many people screaming NO WAKE. I hope the party responsible is held accountable.
  13. AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,301
    Location:
    Sweden
    In the past we didnĀ“t have many 100+ footers going 30+ knots...
  14. Capt Bill11

    Capt Bill11 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,450
    Location:
    Sarasota/Ft. Lauderdale FL
    No it's not.

    In this case he/she I would think would/will be. But the law, like most laws, is not that cut and dry.
  15. AMG

    AMG YF Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    5,301
    Location:
    Sweden
    Well, in my waters there has to be war-times to avoid being responsible for your wake...
  16. C_Spray

    C_Spray New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    Port Deposit, MD
    For what it's worth, we still haven't identified the owner, although my friend who was affected directly has spoken with USCG officers who confirmed that they have an investigation underway. Thank you to those who have sent PM's and emails; this owner will be held accountable.
  17. gordonfreeman

    gordonfreeman New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    lake erie
    its just over 80 tons.
  18. nilo

    nilo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Location:
    Istanbul
    tonnage for Sunseeker 108

    I presume this should be the GRT and not the empty displacement tonnage of the boat, so she is most probably higher than 100 tons in this case.
  19. Ken Bracewell

    Ken Bracewell Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    Somewhere Sunny
    A Google search shows it to be 142 Gross Tons
  20. C_Spray

    C_Spray New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    Location:
    Port Deposit, MD
    OK - This is important
    There has been some communications which indicate that the owners of the vessel are in reality "stand-up" people, and may not be aware of what has happened. While this avenue is being pursued, I ask that everyone refrain from any further saber-rattling and/or conjecture. Maybe this can be settled appropriately after all. Thanks!