A lot of teamwork to haul on different ropes at the same time. Bracing the yards (basically turning the whole vertical stack of sails to capture the wind from a different angle) required ten different lines. Then move to the other mast and do it again.
Didn’t know Navy folks would sail on the Coast Guard Eagle. Plus it’s a different sail plan. Convenient, though; Eagle is based in eastern Connecticut.
Quite a few of those are privately owned. I looked and did not find an easy list of navy tall ships but it’s a number of them.
Doubtful, certainly not in this case. With modern tugs able to put one where it needs to be I would imagine there’s no good reason to set sail until a ship is well clear and certainly not needed in an estuary like the East River.
By Latin American standards a reasonable one. Seems they never got pretentions about state-of-the-art mighty blue-water battle fleets like some folks much further south, so they have been able to keep a Navy they can use and afford.
Very useful for Showing The Flag in a non-aggressive mode as was the case here. But yes, their academy role is teamwork and leadership training, character building and instilling pride in tradition. Put those future officers out there to face wind and wave with rope and canvas, see what they’re made of.
Yes, the Constitution is kept legally in commission in the US Navy, but is not regularly operational as an active sailing vessel and has no mission other than being seen there on ceremonial ocassions.
Contrast that with Eagle, which is in active use as the Coast Guard Academy’s training vessel and is regularly underway in “blue water” on her own.
The German Pamir training ship foundered in a hurricane in 1957; of the many men who reached the boats, only six survived.
I’m not sure how relevant this is, but I used to own a cruising sailboat and it was a pretty strict rule that you started the engine and furled the sails as you approached the harbour. There was often a breakwall and a relatively narrow canal-like passage beyond it leading to the docks, and you needed precise control in that area and of course while docking.
Likewise, you motored out of the harbour and didn’t set sail until you were well out on the open water.
One closeup video show several sailors in the higher yards dropping down with the yard but still tethered to it. They were dropping upside down.
I finally took a look at the video and that sucker was moving way too fast to be just a current. The motor had to have been stuck in reverse for it to achieve the 5+ knots it was moving at. Ships adrift don’t have a bow (in this case stern) wake.
I really know nothing about tall sailing ships. I’ve been on some 26 foot jobs that are scary fast. And scare you fast.
I think that sailing a big job like that would be awesome experience for a person in ANY navy.
My niece was a nurse on the USNS Comfort. She went on to be a Nurse Practitioner. It was kind of funny she’s very physically fit, I’m not really but have a hundred pounds on her (and 30 years). We came close to arm wrestling, but realized that no matter the outcome, it would be embarrassing for both of us.
We both demurred from that ‘challenge’
You’d think that by now the captain would have reported to his superiors, but press report suggests that the Mexican Navy doesn’t yet know how it happened:
"For the past 43 years, the Mexican Navy said, cadets have performed this gesture as a farewell to the port they are leaving. The navy said it is also how this type of boat with sails is maneuvered. "
Why didn’t Cuauhtémoc drop anchor? I’ve read all 88 posts so far; if any of them mentioned this seemingly easy, quick, and obvious response, I apologize for missing it.
Seriously. The ship was caught in a tidal current, out of control, headed toward an obstacle – in a shallow estuary with a sticky bottom. Did nobody on the ship think of this? Did they try it, and it failed? In either case, why haven’t the news reports mentioned it?
Please, fight my ignorance!
From the photos it looks like the lower masts are still standing. Just get Chips to rouse out new caps then sway up new top masts. The rest is just knotting and splicing. No need to warp over to the sheer hulk.
(I’ve been reading way too much Patrick O’Brian lately).
I have not seen one single video that shows the entire sequence from beginning to end so I can’t say exactly how long it took. Knowing where the pier is in relation to the bridge, they probably had a minute or two to do anything. The first reaction would be to get the engine going. It’s just an assumption but I would say that from the time they figured out there was a problem there wasn’t enough time to get to “anchor” on their list of what to do.
Looking at the map and the speed the vessel was moving, I doubt there was more than a minute between the time they knew something was wrong and hitting the bridge. Most of the crew was in the rigging and even if someone could get an anchor released there wasn’t enough time for it to reach the bottom of the channel before the collision.
There’s a difference between unfurling and setting. In the video, they’re unfurled. I’m not sure why they’d do that on departure. Maybe it’s part of the tradtion of saluting the port city as they leave, or maybe it’s safer to do the work aloft while still moored, and then set the sails once they’re underway.
NYT instagram reel has some good angles on the incident and the ship’s movements:
Graham Kemp was out the front dropping anchor when the Lake_Illawarra hit the Tasman Bridge. He was following an order. He got a posthumous bravery award.
Why does the Navy have a band, or a choir? It’s a mix of PR and tradition.
It is my limited understanding that these days sailboats, particularly those above a certain size, are fitted with engines for slow-speed, precise, non-wind-dependent maneuvering in port to increase safety but those engines are minimal. Sailing ships only achieve their full speed when actually under sail.
Or, to put it another way - the sails are the primary propulsion, the engine is a weak backup.
I already addressed this earlier, but for further clarity, if we’re talking about private cruising sailboats rather than ships …
To say that sailboats have engines for “maneuvering in port to increase safety” is rather understating it. No sailor, if sane, would enter a harbour under sail. The practice is to start the engine and furl the sails as you get close to the harbour entrance, then use the engine for maneuvering and docking.
However, the utility of the engine extends far beyond that. It’s a way to get home if you become becalmed. It’s a way to maintain an itinerary and schedule if you’re actually cruising and need to get to a destination and the wind dies down. And it’s a necessary way to maneuver in any restricted waterways. For example, if you wanted to experience a trip through the Trent Severn Waterway – and it’s a beautiful journey – a sailboat would have to plan on motoring its entire 386 km length. In fact, due to clearance limits under bridges, you’d have to take down the mast altogether.
As for sailboat engines being “minimal”, it’s true that they’re not especially powerful, but they don’t need to be. A sailboat has an efficient displacement hull that cuts through the water cleanly, unlike many motorboats with gigantic engines that can only travel efficiently when they’re planing. More reasonable trawler-type motor yachts also have displacement hulls, though, albeit proportionately wider and much less efficient than sailboat hulls.
And although many sailboat engines are gasoline inboards, most of them, especially on boats over about 28 ft, are diesels. They may not put out an enormous amount of power, but they’re robust and reliable and meant for heavy use when required.
Besides the generally smaller horse power the reason sailboats are slow under power is the size and weight of the keel. This is why all of those romantic sailing tours with a strict itinerary are multihull catamarans with smaller keels.