Cruising without fuss

Eric Hiscock (probably most people haven't even heard about him these days) admired his mentor, Roger Pinckney, because he 'cruised without fuss'.  Doing anything without fuss seems antithetical to the twenty-first century approach to life, where even news of one's breakfast is photographed and distributed, in one assumes, the hope of receiving the plaudits of the masses.  (Why else would one do it?)

However, my heroes and heroines cruise without fuss.  Yes, I know that we refer to all genders as heroes these days, but dammit, my heroines are women and deserve to stand out separately.  My particular heroine is very much someone who cruises without fuss.  She blogs quietly and is virtually unknown beyond a small circle, but her blogs are inspirational and her way of doing things an example that those who say they can't afford to go sailing, would do well to follow.

I'm talking about Shirley on Speedwell, who has just blogged about transiting the Panama Canal.  As ever, the event was quietly understated, but her excitement came through.  She mentioned, in her previous blog, how when she came to organise herself to go through the Canal, she was warned about the dangers of venturing into Colon and "thought of the many times I have walked through the town between the supermarket and the bus terminal without any problems."  This sums up Shirley so well.  She is part of the real world, not on the outside, a tourist looking in.  She wanders alone around places that young men would be frightened to visit, not out of any starry-eyed faith in humanity, but rather with a realistic approach to what constitutes danger.  She brings this same sanity to sailing, and although her non-sailing friends appear to think that she's intent on committing suicide, sailing across the Pacific in her 25ft Vertue, she is well aware of all the other Vertues that have crossed oceans and been around Cape Horn.  She also knows that many, many small boats have crossed the Pacific and she knows herself and her boat well enough to realise that while the prospect may be daunting, she and Speedwell are more than capable of making the voyage.

Knowing one's capacities and having the courage to follow through on that knowledge are two very different things.  So many of us are frightened of being frightened.  Shirley is a heroine to me, because she can rise above that fear and achieve her dream.  And doesn't feel that it's necessary make a fuss about it.

STIX nonsense

I have been busily defending my wee boat, of late, against those who would have me believe that she's not fit to take offshore.  And by offshore, I mean 10 miles from land, heading for an island off the coast.  Why is this?  Because under the RCD (Recreational Craft Directive) promulgated by the EU, she is Category C - fit only to be used inshore along the coastline.

Now, let us ignore for a moment, that sailing along the coast is probably the most dangerous bit of sailing that one does, why is my boat so disparaged?  In a nutshell, it's for the simple and (supposedly) sufficient reason that she is less than 32ft long.  Shall I list the boats under 32ft that have made outstanding passages: Wanderer II, Shrimpy, Mingming and Mingming II, Trekka, Novo Espero, Erik the Red, Sopranino, Emmanuel, Felicity Ann, Moonraker, to say nothing of countless Vertues, Contessa 26s, Folkboats and the numerous boats that have taken part in the various Jester challenges?

The so-called STIX factor that dictates this arbitrary ruling, relies largely on LOA and displacement.  It does not take into account such things as: whether the boat is inherently unstable upside down, like many of Bolger's designs; it doesn't take into account that the mast may well be hollow and trap water.

Moreover, for some inexplicable reason, while a Contessa 26 is deemed unfit to go offshore and a Contessa 32 just scrapes by, the RCD blithely suggests that catamarans are fit to sail around Cape Horn.  Now, I know that catamarans have sailed around Cape Horn, and that some of them are very seaworthy vessels, but quite honestly, the average white plastic monster, lumbering across the tropical oceans of the world, is barely fit to take out of the trade winds.  These boats are full of heavy gear, which will not be included in the original design specs, which gave them their Cat A: "All habitable multihull craft shall be so designed as to have sufficient buoyancy to remain afloat in the inverted position".  In spite of their lack of ballast, they probably displace more than the air that would be trapped in them if they went upside down: and any single one of them is perfectly capable of turning upside down, should it encounter a breaking wave either longer than it or wider than it, something that is not unusual south of Cape Horn. Moreover, if you look at most of these cats: how long would they stay inverted before they started breaking up?  A fat lot of good it is, having an escape hatch when all you have to escape to is a life raft in the Southern Ocean!  The RCD should be scrapped, if only for giving a false sense of security to the deluded individuals who think that their mass-produced, floating condo is fit to go south of 40.

A conspiracy theorist might suggest that the RCD has been set up purely to encourage people to buy big boats: better still, as it was only introduced relatively recently, lots of existing boats don't have a 'category' so your wannabe ocean girdler is put off buying it because they can't classify it.  No worries, mate, we'll just by a new Category A boat  and we'll be fine.  Safe to go round Cape Horn, don't you know.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that there is a lot of pressure to consume, and consume means buying new.  No doubt those who advised the committee that finalised the RCD were well meaning: on the other hand, how many of them had sailed offshore in small boats? 

What a load of cobblers.

Even more cobblers is that this magical STIX category says that the boat must not remain inverted for more than 2 minutes.  Why?  Because that's as long as a person can hold their breath.  Well, I should expect that in the sort of conditions where a boat is likely to capsize, most people would be down below anyway and, one would hope, have rather more than 2 minutes' worth of air in the boat.  A good boat, a boat that is unstable upside down (but not necessarily RCD Category A) won't stay upside down for 20 seconds, let alone 2 minutes, but while your Category A boat is upside down, water will come in through the ventilators and probably, through the sliding hatch.  Surely these are covered by the Directive?  No, it simply says: "Particular attention should be paid where appropriate to: ... ventilation fittings."  Not that all ventilators must be waterproof when the boat is upside down,  (probably because such ventilators - they are made - are quite expensive and would erode the manufacturer's profit).  And the number of sliding hatches that are waterproof under several feet of water, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  And again, the mast will fill with water, being as how it's a modern pointy rig with everything running down inside the mast: and imagine the loads on that when the boat decides to sit up again.

Oh, and by the way, just in case you happen to be outside when all this happens - there is no provision for a strong point for the attachment of safety harnesses in the cockpit!

But small boats aren't fit to take offshore.  End of argument.