 
I love the smell of calamari in the morning
Regarding Anton Le Rutte’s article on biofuels (Afloat, Jun’09).
I have been making biodiesel for seven years now. I’ve run my car, my wife’s car and our yacht exclusively on biodiesel for all of that time. I also have a long list of very happy boat owners who love their biodiesel.
I have never had any of the problems that Anton attests to. As with any fuel it is necessary to pre-filter it and, if you don’t use your boat for long periods or you live in the tropics, then just like normal diesel you will have to add a biocide to your tank, these, for me, are the normal precautions a boat-owner should take with their fuel. I have never had any fuel go bad and I’ve got samples in my garage that are seven years old.
Some of the advantages of biodiesel are higher lubricating properties than diesel, it cuts exhaust emissions by about 80%, it is free of lead, sulphur dioxide, halogens and has greatly reduced particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide.
Biodiesel replaces that foul diesel smell which seems to permeate boats running on diesel, with a very neutral smell of hot chips.
One hundred percent biodiesel is about as biodegradable as sugar and as toxic as table salt making it perfect for our fragile marine environment.
Of course anyone thinking of using biodiesel should fully investigate it themselves, there are plenty of books on the subject and things like climate do need to be taken into account. It does have a higher cloud point than diesel but with the addition of a wintering agent you can even use it in sub-zero temperatures.
I think it’s sad that Mr Le Rutte should adopt such a negative stand on biofuels. Nevertheless I’ll still be smiling as I drive by the petrol stations, totally oblivious to their price boards and, as I motor on Pittwater, smile every time I catch a faint whiff of calamari and chips.
Tom (surname withheld),
Avalon.
Liferaft stowage
“Think about it!” – So ends the letter from John Ferris (Afloat, June’09) on the topic of safe stowage of life rafts.
I for one will now be changing from my below-deck valise, to a deck-mounted raft. For years I’ve believed I was making the safest choice in spite of the obvious challenges of lifting a raft from below decks in urgent circumstances. After reading John’s letter, I now realise I’d missed one fundamental point. Liferafts are still buoyant while deflated.
As John observed following his inspection of the wreck of Excalibur, the chances of freeing a buoyant raft from an upturned cockpit (or any other flooded, enclosed space) are very slim.
There are credible arguments against deck-mounting, eg liferafts washed overboard when conditions have forced lashings and fittings to fail. Another issue is they remain vulnerable to vandalism and theft when the yacht is unattended.
Certainly these were part of my reasoning for below deck stowage. On balance, however, I had chosen ‘below’ due to another rarely discussed phenomena.
According to Adlard Cole’s venerable text, Heavy Weather Sailing, even small amounts of weight stowed above deck have a surprisingly large effect on a yacht’s ultimate stability. Seemingly benign items like radar-domes, mast-steps and drums lashed to pushpits, actually reduce the vessel’s Angle of Vanishing Stability. The lower the AVS, the greater the risk of capsize and the longer the delay in returning to upright.
Once inverted however, yachts with greater areas of trapped buoyancy eg prominent cabin structures (provided they are watertight) will self-right more quickly. A deflated, deck-mounted liferaft is buoyant and therefore adds to this self-righting effect.
In other words, why not live with the slight reduction in vanishing stability if it is offset with additional ‘inverted’ buoyancy. While I may never see conditions to warrant it, I can understand that such a nightmare would demand the least obstacles between escape from a doomed yacht and quick deployment of the raft.
Clearly, there is a lot that can go wrong, even for an uninjured crewman when trying to lift a 40kg-plus liferaft from below decks.
Thanks John for making the issues of liferaft-stowage clearer and the decision to ‘go-above’ a little easier.
Stephen Reed, SV Tomorrow,
Eden.
The high cost of rescues
In his Editor’s Column (Afloat, June ‘09), Robin Copeland declares that marine rescue services are “not for the stupid or the naïve who demand rescue services because they get a little scared or cold when they hit some bad weather.”
Oh yes they are, and that’s as it should be. One of the benefits of an affluent and compassionate society such as ours is that we can afford to provide emergency assistance to everyone – experienced or beginner, foolish or wise, lucky or unfortunate.
Does Mr Copeland suggest that the ambulance service only save the lives of road accident victims who were in the right? That the fire brigade leave a family to perish inside their blazing house because they happen to think the children were playing with matches?
The notion that rescue costs should be recovered from what Copeland describes as the “bloody idiots” who find themselves in peril is equally illogical.
On what rational basis does he propose a distinction can be made between a reasonable or unreasonable call on emergency services? At what level of experience does a yacht’s crew qualify to be saved, free of charge? How seaworthy must the boat have been? Who makes those decisions, and on the basis of whose evidence? The whole notion is patently preposterous.
And, still on this point, we should not be swayed by Mr Copeland’s claims that these rescues cost “many $100,000s”. Most major rescues are performed by large agencies with standing assets and staff – usually the armed services. The additional cash costs involved are usually only some extra fuel and overtime.
It’s too easy for an Editor to flatter his readers by attacking what he calls the “bleeding hearts” who, like me, believe their tax dollars are well spent funding rescue services provided for everyone, including the “stupid and naïve”.
One day, despite more than 40 years of safe offshore sailing, I might well do something careless that places me in peril. I’d like to think that the people who come to rescue me won’t be typing out an invoice as they pull alongside.
David Salter,
Hunters Hill.
Dyslexic bridge builders
Interesting reading A Bridge too Low by Alan Lucas (Afloat, May’09).
Alan mentions that yachtsmen in the USA were able to influence the powers that be to construct fixed bridges, which crossed the Intra-Coastal Waterway (ICW), to a clearance height of 65 feet (19.5m).
All the way from Norfolk to Miami, a distance of 980nm, fixed bridges over the ICW have this clearance but then the joker steps in.
Between North Miami and the Rickenbacker Causeway, 11nm south, the ICW passes through eight bridges, seven of them opening. The eighth, the Julia Tuttle Causeway to Miami Beach, an offshoot of the Interstate Freeway, I-95, has a fixed bridge and the clearance is only 56 feet (16.8m).
I know because I once walked a yacht, with a mainmast truck the same height above the water, under it, having to wait for mid-tide to do so.
Did the highway authorities just get the figures reversed, 56 instead of 65, or was it deliberate? In any case it means that a yacht, with a masthead more than 56 feet above the water, must exit the ICW at Fort Lauderdale and negotiate the last 20nm, from Port Everglades to Miami, in the open ocean – after completing 960nm in sheltered waters.
Shame on the bridge builders.
Stan Bradfield,
Kelso, Qld.
Swansea Channel
Jack Garaty’s letter ‘Who is accountable for dredging Swansea Channel?’ (Afloat May’09) clearly explained and illustrated the problems being faced with this wonderful waterway due to the ‘Authorities’ failing to address a very simple problem – clearing of navigational channels.
In the photograph, credit is due to the vessel assisting the yacht through the channel – Coast Guard CG 091 a 9.4m SRB category 2 Coast Guard Swansea rescue vessel.
Both AVCGA and RVCP are regularly requested to assist yachts across the shoaled Swansea navigational channel due to siltation, often working in tandem as a team (one rescue vessel heeling the yacht and the other towing).
CG091 was once again tasked on Sunday June 7 for this purpose which would seem to be a continual demand on these dedicated volunteers and their equipment.
Surely one day the ‘Authorities’ must measure up to their responsibilities and address this issue of navigation without putting the volunteer services, their resources, boats and people at risk or are we to be faced with Lake Macquarie becoming a land-locked lagoon with no vessel access to the ocean.
David Lyall,
BOA of NSW.
Inability to enter or leave Lake Macquarie
On the subject of commercial vessels and large ocean-going yachts who used to use Swansea Channel recreationally and who are now faced with prohibitive costs to enter and leave this Lake.
I find it hard to assimilate why our, so called, ‘Go Ahead’ Lake Macquarie City Council is not jumping up and down about the restriction of trade to this area, and the damage to all vessels entering or leaving this acknowledged ‘tourist paradise’.
I wonder who is responsible for compensation for the damage caused to these vessels and I also wonder who will be the responsible Authority, when a death occurs – and it will happen soon – because of this buck passing.
Any monies sought under, at least, the Law of Tort (for compensation for causing a ‘Death by Negligence’) will far outweigh any costs to keep this Channel open.
So let’s, at least, establish who is the actual Authority, once and for all, that this blame and shame can be locked into, and no more Government sleight of hand designed for confusion.
Thank you for the excellent work your magazine is doing for the boating public, and also look forward to reading and learning from this honest and believable publication.
Tom Case,
Marks Point.
AVCG volunteers Parsons and Foster reinstated
In November 2004, Bob Foster and Harry Parsons were wrongfully disenrolled from the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association (as reported by Afloat at the time).
The decision was especially bewildering to many because both men were so generous with their time and energy in making a substantial contribution to the boating community in Port Jackson though their work at Coast Guard Sydney. Indeed, the NSW Government acknowledged the work of Bob Foster and his wife Jan by awarding them the Maritime Medal for their contribution to Coast Guard in 2006.
Hence, it was with great relief that I read in the current edition of Coast Guard’s national magazine a statement that the Association’s National Board has now unreservedly apologised to both men for the incident and has reinstated them as members of Coast Guard retrospectively to 2004. The action by the current National Board is a significant step forward for Coast Guard and its ordinary members.
Clearly something went badly wrong back in 2004 and, moreover, it should not have taken over four years to fix the problem. Coast Guard should critically and transparently review its procedures and the role of senior officers involved to learn from their mistakes and avoid repeating them in the future. There must be accountability at all levels within the Association, particularly as Coast Guard has a special duty of care to its members because they are volunteers.
This incident has come at a significant cost to many people. The public discrediting of Commanders Foster and Parsons by Coast Guard harmed them personally. Many members who had also made Coast Guard a significant part of their life lost out too because they felt they could not stay in an organisation that mistreated its members in this way. The boating community in Sydney lost a 24/7 radio base, as Coast Guard Sydney could no longer support this. Coast Guard itself has suffered reputational harm.
No one has emerged a winner from this unfortunate incident. However, at least the honour of Commanders Foster and Parsons has been publicly restored and their personal standing has been enhanced by their perseverance in the search for the justice they absolutely deserve.
David Lynch,
Waverton.
Sleeping on the rails
Having sat on the side of many racing yachts ocean wide from 12-24 hours without relief I question the comment from Mr David Beaks (Afloat, May’09) that “no-one came off the rail throughout the race (even when they should have slept) … I put a lot of trust in my crew members so that whatever happens on the water, we have the right people in the right positions.”
All of the above is very well but regardless of whoever wants to argue if you spend ‘sleep hours’ on the rails as was put by Mr Beaks you don’t have the right people in the right position when the proverbial hits the fan.
The above is a problem that the yachting world will not address – years ago we saw three crew drown in the UK when the boat ‘fell over’ when the three crew were strapped to the rail to prevent them falling over while they were asleep. I even remember the famous Sid Fischer once saying his crew would never be allowed to sleep on the rails!
Wes Taylor,
North Balgowlah.
What lurks beneath
I read with interest the two letters in your May issue regarding fatal shark attacks in Middle Harbour. The letter from John Macdonald contains one error and one omission, while the letter from John Rowley requires clarification.
Zita Steadman was killed by a shark on January 4, 1942 in Bantry Bay, not off Castle Rock. This means there were two fatal attacks in Bantry Bay in 1942 – Zita Steadman on January 4 and Denise Burch on December 26.
Missing from Mr Macdonald’s list of shark fatalities in Middle Harbour was that of Walter German near Sugarloaf Point on December 8, 1916. The Australian Shark Attack File indicates Mr German was attacked off Seven Shillings Beach, in Double Bay, but newspaper accounts of the day clearly state it occurred off Sugarloaf Point. Mr German and his wife lived at Sugarloaf Point and were swimming in front of their house when the attack occurred. Despite the brave efforts of Mrs German and another woman, Mr German died.
Between 1907 and 1963 there were eight fatal shark attacks in Middle Harbour but, like Mr Macdonald, I don’t know why Middle Harbour has been the site of so many attacks. Perhaps a shark expert or a marine biologist could explain this phenomenon.
Mr Rowley was correct in saying the ambulance ferrying Marcia Hathaway to hospital broke down and had to be pushed up the hill by volunteers, including Miss Hathaway’s distraught fiancée, but neither a working ambulance nor anything else would have altered the outcome of the attack. I have seen photos of the injuries Miss Hathaway suffered in the attack and no one could have survived them. Her injuries were far worse than those described in Mr Macdonald’s letter – she was almost bitten in half.
The fact there have been no fatal attacks in Middle Harbour since 1963 doesn’t mean it can’t happen again. There are still large sharks in Middle Harbour, as was shown in February 1999, when a 3.5m bull shark was caught near Grotto Point. The photo published in the Daily Telegraph should have sent a shiver up the spine of anyone who swims in Middle Harbour.
Like Mr Macdonald, I was also taught to swim at Clontarf pool and clearly remember my parents’ repeated warnings never to swim outside the pool. Mr Macdonald and I were lucky to be raised by parents who knew the danger lurking beneath the surface of this beautiful waterway.
John Morcombe,
The Manly Daily.
Ex-Navy Workboat 433
It was great to see Peter Austin’s letter (Afloat, Jun’09) as it reminded me as an owner of 433 to get on with some decent research on her history.
We bought her at a Navy auction in a poor condition in the ’90s and with the help of the good folk at Northbridge Marina (the lead shipwright Al having worked at Garden Island on support craft in his former life) we got her ship shape – and she is kept that way now with the help of master mariner Ross Gibson (ex-Sydney Ports master) who tends her like his baby. We always intended to preserve as much of her in her Navy state as we could – and this we will continue to do.
We have tried, but maybe not hard enough, to research her history, and I mean by that her history not the history of the workboats in general which is well recorded.
When we were doing her up at Northbridge we met a wonderful gentleman who said he had been on her in 1945 as a corporal coxswain in New Guinea and he said that the boat (or maybe he said just a workboat) took General Blamey and the actress/singer Gracie Fields around Milne Bay to gee up the troops.
I too would appreciate any help in setting her place in history
Ken Tuckey,
0419 919 819; KTuckey@movecorp.com.au
Manly.
Work Boats
Peter Austin’s letter ‘Graceful old launch’ (Afloat, Jun’09) was most interesting. They are, in fact, Army Auxiliary Work Boats and used post war by the Navy. Nearly 300 of them were built to an American design in factories in Victoria during 1943.
They were licensed to carry 44 passengers or three tons of cargo, they were also fitted out as stretcher carriers and frozen meat transporters. They served mainly in New Guinea and had copper sheathed hulls to keep out the worms.
There are 11 workboats privately owned and two at Garden Island in Sydney Harbour, most in nearly original layout. A hull is being totally refitted at the Lilyfield train sheds. 430 and 441 have been totally rebuilt to original specifications using modern materials.
Three of these workboats were converted to ferries and used on the Yarra River in Melbourne: 445, 426, 423 – and maybe still in use?
During the recent Naval Review by the NSW Governor, four workboats followed the parade, they can be seen regularly at the Wooden Boat Show and special days on Sydney Harbour.
Some of the numbers of the remaining boats are: 390, 393, 401, 413, 421, 422, 430, 433, 441, 442 plus two with no numbers.
Philip Dawson (#413).
by email.
Merger of rescue organisations
The intended amalgamation of the different VMRs into a single organisation – NSW Marine Rescue – is to be applauded and is long overdue.
The general boating public does not care less, which of the separate rescue organisations they are talking to. Apart from reporting emergencies, boaters typically want to log on or off, or log a passage or get information.
With multiple organisations covering an area it is not surprising how often we hear confusion and delays as vessels call the wrong organisation when attempting to log off or report a passage progress.
Hopefully, with one organisation, this will become a thing of the past, with rescue services reducing duplication and confusion, and possibly providing more around the clock monitoring.
On the safety front, it is encouraging to see early rescues that have already resulted from the use of 406 EPIRBs, compared to the now defunct 121.5MHz system. The use of personal EPIRBs (PLBs) will undoubtedly increase, particularly if the price falls. This can only contribute to improved safety.
Bill Watson,
Wollongong.
Crime and punishment on Navy Training Ships in the 1930s
I noted with interest your item on the TS Conway and the HMS Worcester (Afloat, Jan’09).
This story brought back many memories of my boyhood, when in 1938 at the age of 12, I was posted to TS Exmouth which was anchored in the Thames at Grays, Essex. There were approximately 240 boys on board and we had eight divisions. Each division looked after a certain section of the ship. Anyone found abusing any section was immediately set upon with dire results. Astern of us was TS Warspite, these boys we considered ‘toffee noses’ and there was quite a bit of enmity between the two ships’ complements.
Punishment was varied. In the middle of winter with snow on the upper deck a miscreant was ordered to climb up to the fore lower top in bare feet, where he could remain for an hour or two. Petty officer boys would assist him down at end of the punishment time. Decks were scrubbed irrespective of the time of the year, again in bare feet.
A heavy wooden vaulting horse, which took at least four boys to move was placed in position and any miscreant would find his legs strapped on one end of the horse with a training officer on each arm, extending him the full length of the horse. Mickey Masters, who got sixpence a ‘cut’, then selected an appropriate cane and administered the cuts. There were other forms of punishment that I won’t go into here.
In late 1939 we were evacuated to Burnham-on-Crouch where we were billeted in the village. The local yacht club, which won the design building of the year, was our headquarters. After a few months there I think someone in authority realised that 240 boys training for the navy were rather close to the Germans so forthwith we were transferred to a small village in Gloucestershire. Here we were again billeted out in the village and stables, and the Three Feathers Hotel became our headquarters.
In May 1940 I joined the Highland Princess of the Royal Mail Line, at King George V dock in London. Once aboard we made our way cautiously around the coast and anchored in the Clyde in Scotland.
I was to remain at sea until 1948 when I came out on a ship and decided to stay in Australia. I am now a naturalised Aussie with a wife of 60 years and two lovely daughters.
I look forward to reading Afloat as it contains some very interesting human stories. Keep up the good work.
Bob Westbrook,
Unanderra.
Battery Monitoring
I was reading the very interesting article Battery Monitoring by Gavin Sorrell (Afloat, Apr’09).
Gavin discusses the use of shunts to enable the measurement of Direct Current and he states that an ammeter should be placed in parallel with a shunt.
I may be mistaken, but it is my opinion that a voltmeter is placed in parallel with a shunt. In the strictest sense a voltmeter is in fact an ammeter but being a high resistance device which limits the current that would pass through a voltmeter circuit.
Should an ammeter be placed in parallel with a shunt the most likely outcome would be destruction of the ammeter and wiring.
Colin Williams,
Miranda.
Hi Colin,
Shunts are fitted into circuits with the sole purpose of allowing the current (Amperes) to be measured. A voltmeter would not be fitted in parallel to that. A Voltmeter is fitted in parallel to the circuit or load to measure the potential difference (i.e. Voltage) between the two points it is connected to.
The shunt and the ammeter are fitted in parallel. The current flowing in the circuit will therefore be split, some of it flowing through the shunt, some of it through the ammeter. It will be split in a ratio that is inversely proportional to the internal resistance of the shunt and the ammeter respectively.
The shunt is therefore designed to have a low internal resistance and the ammeter a high internal resistance, i.e. most of the current will flow through the shunt and only a fraction of the current will flow through the meter.
In the space available to cover each topic, we have to be economical with words. That sometimes leads to making some rather cryptic statements which may be misleading. We apologise for that.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.
Kurt Küpper, Director,
Aquavolt, (02) 9417 8455.
Fouled anchors at Balls Head
Government departments be they local, state, or federal, will not act without due cause. The interpretation of due cause in this case is the voice of Joe Public, the louder the voice, the more chance of action.
If just a few of the stressed-out boat owners such as I (who just forked out for a new Delta) who have had an anchor fouled in Balls Head Bay / Berry Island, Sydney Harbour, could write just 25 words on their ordeal I wonder whether Afloat could cope with the influx of mail?
Would the message get across to the relevant maritime authority to get the place cleaned up? I’m sure Navy dive instructors would appreciate the challenge … tonnes of tangled chain, anchors and heavy cable.
The local residents would ensure we don’t end up with another Coasters Retreat full of club owned plastic, hull hammers, rather a nice peaceful area to anchor in a secure safe environment.
Boom, it also just hit me (sorry!), in these troubled financial times I wonder what secondhand anchors are worth, where’s my diving gear ...
P.Whiteman
Windang.
R.S.V.P.
In search of Papagayo
 I am hoping that your readers might be able to help me in the search for my grandfather’s launch.
She was named Papagayo and was moored in Careel Bay from the time my Grandfather (A.P. ‘Perce’ North) purchased her in the early 1960s until she was sold by his estate in 1974.
The picture is about all we have as we cannot locate any old registration documents. The Papagayo nameplate was removed at the time of sale. We believe she is a 26 foot launch built about 1930 and powered by a BMC diesel.
Doug North,
dougnorth2@gmail.com
tel: 0414 303 555.
|
