Need help with a rogue 108' Sunseeker

Nice to start off with a put down-insult.

Either way it's still conjecture.

Since you don't know that would be called a "guess"... and you say "drunk buddies" which shows more guessing.

Nice sexism there. Care to tell us what you think the chances are the "guy" was jewish or black also?

I'm not the person guessing here, or being a sexist insulter, nor am I excited. I'm asking for you and others to stop guessing.

And what accusation did I make? How is it that you came to the conclusion that I am excited?

As I said before, calm rational thinking is needed- not conjecture or high emotions. We as a marine community should not allow alleged incidents like this to happen, but we also need to be vigilant against rumors, innuendo and outright falsehoods causing havoc.

1) You asked for it

2) True

3) True again

4) Again with the reading problems. I said if the owner was female she would not have allowed the kind of irresponsible helmsmanship on display in this situation. What is sexist about that??

5) As for guessing, did you read my cut and paste from one of the victims? There's no guessing there, he was right in the thick of it.

Let me say this and I'll end my participation because I have no dog in this fight; no disrespect to owners but I hope it was NOT a hired Captain at the helm. They are supposed to know better than this.

Calling anyone participating in a discussion whose opinion doesn't fall in line with yours part of a pitchfork-wielding mob with burning torches is not only an accusation (of overreaction or behavior that simply was not exhibited at any time), but an insult. That's the hyperbolic, histrionic accusation you made, and that's how I came to the simple and obvious conclusion that any normal, rational person would come to.

Why don't you start the calm and rational thinking with yourself, hotshot?

I addressed what the letter of the law is, and how no matter what intent a skipper has with his speed, he still has liability in the jurisdiction at hand. There's no conjecture or emotion to that statement - so why are you so worked up to do a line-by-line retort to multiple posters?


Speaking of conjecture, innuendo, and outright falsehoods, let's examine this gem, shall we?

The law in that area is going to say exactly what it very clearly says - the operator is liable for the damage caused by his wake. Seems the innuendo and falsehoods in this case are of your own making. I'm a powerboater, and I'm speaking calmly and reasonably when I say your looking for excuses and 'outs' makes all of the rest of us look bad. You're trying to game the system, looking for excuses for others to do so, and then lashing out at those who say to knock it off.

Well, knock it off.

We know you jockey a big bad battlewagon, this isn't a dick-measuring contest. The law is clear, the actions of the operator (creating a wake which caused damage) are clearly alleged, and it seems the operator has been addressed and the matter is being sorted.

Again, time for you to knock it off.

Unless you're so fired up you can't, or you're one of those guys who insists on having the last word.

Of course it would seem, and one would hope, that in the case under discussion the operator will be held fully responsible for the damage he/she caused. And I have not seen where anyone has said differently. (Although it is interesting and odd that no agency has, as far as we know, stepped up as yet and charged them with anything.)

But openly discussing how "you are responsible for your wake" laws are applied, interpreted and enforced does not translate into "looking for excuses" or gaming the system.

And demonizing and/or trying to stifle those who do choose to discuss these issues does nothing to change the reality of the way the law/s may be applied.

If having an open discussion (And after all isn't that what forums like this are for?) about concepts that you don't agree with bothers you so much, perhaps you should "knock it off" and leave it to those who can understand the difference between discussing laws and how they work, and advocating breaking or skirting those laws.

1)One thing I often caution helmsen about is to never wake a bayman because it's amazing how far and accurately they can throw a clam. (Pulling a rake all day is great exercise). The prudent skipper stops when being chased in local waters here, especially when he may have screwed up.
2) Men are absolutely to biggest offenders when it comes to throwing wakes, although I suspect that has a lot more to do with numbers than testosterone.
3) I don't think anyone can argue that it's OK to cause damage with your wake. As for the legality or liability, my lawyer is on speed dial.
4) "There has been some communications which indicate that the owners of the vessel are in reality "stand-up" people,"

Any updates on #4 available?

What's The Question?

Why would a licensed captain continue to caveat the wake responsibility issue. Whether or not you get caught, identified or pursued; you are none-the-less ultimately responsible for your wake - legally, ethically and morally.

There is certainly a difficulty for those damaged by wakes on shore or docks to track down and identify the culprit as wakes travel for miles, but at the end of the day the responsibility remains squarely with the vessel operator.

It is not just federal and state law, it is a basic law of the sea.

Stan, I agree with you 100%, any captain 50 ton to a Master is responsible no matter how big or small the incident was. If there was infact damage to other boats or harm to people he /she should report it to the owner and then on to the local authority and to the vessels insurance to investiagte.

Cheers,

Jc

I think what people here are trying to convey is that they don't wake people intentionally. I do a lot of deliveries, all over the United States, Carribbean, Bahamas, and Central America. And in many area's it is responsible to run let's say a 75' Motoryacht at cruise speed and throw a wake, without damage to anything or anyone. Every once in a while, you may come around a bend and there is a camoflagued boat that you don't see until it is too late. You cannot slow down in time and not wake the person. Most of the time it is just uncomfortable for the person in the small boat and does not create damage. Accidents like this do happen from time to time and many times it is not intentional. When you're delivering a yacht 2,000 NM and most of them on inland waterways, you cannot be right 100% of the time. And on the same token if you did the entire trip at 7 knots, not only would it be very detrimental to the engines, it would take 60 days to get there instead of 12 days. Every once in a while you don't see something and things happen. Just like tractor trailer drivers every once in a while clip or hit a newspaper machine on the corner of the street or what have you. While every professional Captain that I know of is very safe and prudent, every once in a while we all end up upsetting someone.

It's like I slow down for any vessel that is smaller then the one I am on. The first thing I do is try to raise any vessel on the VHF radio before passing them, regardless of size. I ask them how they'd like me to pass them. And many times they'll want me to slow down, and I do slow down to idle speed. However many other yachts are not prudent and do not even keep their VHF on (mostly sailboats), and I slow down to hull speed yet have to do 8 knots to pass because they won't slow down from 6 knots for a minute. Then they get mad anyways because they get a 12" wake which causes no harm to them, when I am doing my best to be safe and prudent AND considerate of others.

Anyone who's read my posts knows I am not a "cowboy"- and I've said as much. If you have read my posts in this thread you have seen I have called for the party to take responsibility and be held liable- for what exactly happened- not what people have guessed happened.

No matter what your personal experience saying one sex (or color or religion) is a better or more responsible boater (substitute business person/plumber/accountant or just about anything except father or mother) is sexism and also plain wrong, period.

I better than most know that the general boating public tends to dislike (dislike is probably a bit weak of a word) "battlewagons"- and I usually step very lightly because of this. However that does not mean I cannot ask other boaters to deal with facts, not guesses, and to not assume.

Posting line by line while quoting others is a standard method to replying, and in no way should it be implied the person posting using a line by line is excited or irrational, nor should line by line replies be denounced simply because they are line by line.

In summary my posts have primarily called for three things: 1)The vessel to be held responsible. 2) People to stop guessing or calling for actions based on those guesses. 3)People to not be sexist.

In addition I will not call others derogatory names, nor assume other boaters (no matter what kind of boat they have) are less or more capable than myself. I ask everyone here to refrain from personal insults to individuals or groups in future posts.

I totally agree with this and it was very well said.

That is such a fun and effective way to handle these things. I highly recommend it. It's cheap and really teaches responsibility when someone is embarrassed in front of and risks being voted off a board.

This boat blew past my mom and her BF on their way from Baltimore to our house July 5th...... They said they really got rocked in our 57 Jefferson Pilothouse.

I understand this is not really important anymore, but I spotted the vessel in question in the Newport, RI Harbor this morning. Although this was an unfortunate event, the yacht is stunning. I hope all turns out well.

From what I know it is the owner of bombardier in Canada

And the good news is...?

It sounds like the good news is that the owner is going to pay for all of the damages from his wake to the boat owners.

Capt J,
I was being a bit sarcastic as it seems a lot of folks went through a lot of trouble just to get a settlement and a limp apology. What bothers me is that this was an avoidable situation, and because someone wanted to go fast, many others had to be inconvenienced. Would like to get the captain's perspective on the situation and outcome.

Personally I'd pass on the settlement offer in favor of dragging the owner through a protracted and public legal proceeding even if I came out with no money in the end. I'd also buy a few shares in the company to embarrass them at the shareholders meeting. Then again, that finger would have brought out my flares, but I'm a New Yawka with an Irish temper.