I was recently reading a reputable boating magazine that I respect when I came across a “rule of seamanship” that simply took my breath away, it was so wrong:
Reefing line(s) and hardware should be used to set a reef, not to take the full load. An easy way to reduce load is to use an earring. This is a length of line passed through the new clew and around the boom. A 3/8-inch line passed three times and knotted with a square knot serves fine. Once the reef is set, but while the sheets are still eased, simply lash the earring to the reefed clew. Slightly easing the reef line will put the load on the earring rather than the reef line. Because the reef line doesn’t hold the load, your reef lines won’t chafe through during a long passage.
Dangerously Logical
At first reading it sounds logical and right, doesn’t it? And the worst thing is that this “rule” would, I suspect, sound perfectly correct to a new sailor.
But a Really Bad Idea
But I’m sure the more experienced among you have already come up with several reasons why it is bad advice. Here is my take:
- Tying the “earring” in will put the crew member in a highly dangerous position standing up next to the thrashing boom (“sheets still eased”) for several minutes. If you don’t believe that it will take that long, just try passing a line three times through a reef clew and then tying it tight with a square knot while standing up and trying to keep your balance as the boat jumps around in a building wind and seaway.
- Tying in the earring will necessitate bringing the boom almost into the center line of the boat, even when reefing off the wind, with the attendant steering problems that will occur just when a crewmember is in a vulnerable position—an accidental gybe will ruin that crewmember’s day.
- Tying a “square knot” requires both hands, thereby violating one of the base rules of seamanship: “one hand for the ship, one hand for yourself”.
- Someone forced to go through this whole song and dance every time they reef will tend to put off reefing too long—it’s just human nature.
- There is no way to tie the “earring” tight enough so that the sail will retain a good set after the reef pennant is eased. And further, the “earring” will slowly move forward on the boom over time, which will exacerbate the situation.
- The “earring” will cause more chafe than it solves.
In some 40 years and 140,000 miles at sea, on many different boats, I have never seen a “reefing line chafe through”. I do know that it happens, but that is the result of a poorly designed reefing system and not a reason to prescribe a fundamentally dangerous “rule”.
But That’s Not The Point
But guess what? None of that is the point of this post. And my purpose is not to take the writer in question to task. If for no other reason than I’m sure that I, myself, have, over the years, written and said plenty of things that were just plain wrong too.
Here is the point: A set of rules will never make a seaman, only common sense and experience will do that. So when you read a “rule of seamanship” spouted by an expert, always apply the common sense test. Yes, even if the expert is me! And if applying the “rule” being espoused seems onerous or even dangerous, ask yourself, even if you are new to offshore sailing, if there is a better way.
Not Always Wrong
By the way, add three words at the start of the above “rule” and it becomes good advice (except for the square (reef) knot). Those words are “In some cases”. For example, you are crewing on, or delivering, a poorly set up boat and your inspection shows that the reefing system components are undersized and have sharp edges that will chafe the pennants—common sense rules the rules.
A Safety Strop, Not an “Earring”
Even the idea of reinforcing the reef pennant is not fundamentally wrong. On Morgan’s Cloud, if we are expecting to be reefed for a long period (I’m talking a day or more) in a building breeze and therefore have tied in the reef points round the bunt of the sail—normally we just leave the bunt lying in the lazy jacks (full battens help make this work well)—we will then use what we call a “safety strop”: a short length of 5/8” line reeved once through the clew and tied with a couple of half hitches back through the loop that we have made with a pre-tied bowline. This can be done quickly with one hand after everything has settled down.
Our main reason for reeving the (non-loaded) safety strop is that it will prevent a tired and stupid crewmember (probably me) from releasing the reef clew before casting off the points, which will destroy the sail as the points load up and rip through—an error I have seen made at least twice; and one I saw the results of often when I was a sailmaker.
Of course the strop will also prevent damage in the unlikely event that the clew pennant does break. However, the chances of this happening with a well designed reefing system like ours were always small. And now that we use high-modulus rope for our pennants, the chance is almost non-existent, not only because of the strength of the line but also because the low stretch means that the pennants don’t work back and forth an inch or so when the boat goes over a sea, as they used to with Dacron pennants.
Comments
If you want to comment about your reefing system, great. A good reefing system and the knowledge to use it right are one of the largest contributors to offshore safety and enjoyment there is. But I for one am much more interested in hearing about other incidences when a seemingly logical “rule” has failed the common sense test.
John Peltier September 4, 2012 at 10:01 am
Have you written the editors? This is a safety-related issue that would be useful to read about in the next issue’s Letters to the Editor.
John September 5, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Hi John,
That was my first thought, but if I wrote to the editor every time I disagreed with something in a sailing magazine it would be a full time job! So I thought it would be a better use of my time to try and encourage people to always apply the common sense test to any “expert opinion”.
Marc Dacey March 10, 2013 at 1:44 am
I appreciate it, John, as on Lake Ontario with a “skinny main” IOR-style boat as the majority of my boating practice, I’ve rarely taken in a reef. I just douse the headsail up to 32 knots or so. So I lack the experience with a more proportional sailing rig, like my steel cutter with a 15 instead of a 10 foot boom, to know when to reef (aside from “early and often”). In 14 years of sailing in some rough stuff, I have reefed under half a dozen times, despite being rigged most seasons to do so (slab reefing). Offshore, I’ve either been with racers who don’t reef as a point of pride, or with boats that have in-mast furling, which is a different set of decisions, in my view.
In other words, I would’ve tended to take the advice on “earings” at face value, because it sounds superficially seamanlike. Of course, so does your own advice, but I would give greater weight to the opinions of a fellow with tens of thousands of NM under his belt than those of a magazine, no matter how reputable.
So thanks for another gem I will tuck under my belt. If it’s any consolation, I do concentrate on the tack hook and the clew when reefing, and I do plan on having my cutter’s “ocean” main set with a deep first reef and a 40% second reef, because otherwise I’d need a trysail.
Frankly, even the steel beast goes hull speed under just an unreefed staysail and no main at 35 knots, so maybe I need to recalibrate or get that trysail and install a track for it!
John March 10, 2013 at 10:36 am
Hi Marc,
We are big believers that deep reefs in the main are not a substitute for a trysail for a voyaging boat. I have only used one once, but it saved my bacon. Here is the story
Marc Dacey March 10, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Good to know. My mast is a very strong Selden with doubled uppers and two backstays, 11 5/16″ stays in all, plus a ridiculous number of halyards and lifts, about eight in all.
I believe I could take a parallel track for a trysail fairly easily, as I don’t think anyone makes “track gates” anymore.
So how have you rigged for a trysail on the current boat, John? A good cautionary tale, by the way. Nice bacon save!
C. Dan September 4, 2012 at 10:28 am
Just went back and looked through your reefing slideshow, which is great.
Your systems are… beefy. Laughably so compared to my 28′ pocket cruiser (for which I am still planning the reef system).
But if this is the quality we have to look forward to for the A-40, I think there will be a lot of very happy customers.
John September 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Hi C. Dan,
You can count on the A-40 having a really strong and easy to use reefing system that we will test and refine during the prototype process.
Matt Marsh September 4, 2012 at 10:47 am
Here’s another “rule of seamanship” that I wish would go away:
“When you’re near other boats, slow down.”
Yes, it sounds courteous and seamanlike. But a “typical” motor cruiser around here is a planing hull weighing in at 2 to 10 tonnes. Such a boat, at 20-25 knots, makes a relatively gentle wake and presents an obvious, predictable visual target. If its driver decides to be courteous and slows to 12 knots, the wake doubles in height and develops a nasty breaking crest, the bow trims so high that he can’t see ahead, and it gets harder for other skipper to judge his course. To us small-boat folks, this is Not Fun.
Common sense, once again, would be preferable: In many cases, I’d rather be passed by a 7-tonne cruiser that’s tracking a straight course at 25 knots than one that’s plowing a hole and yawing like crazy at 12 knots.
Marc Dacey March 10, 2013 at 1:50 am
Could it be my seasons crewing in balls-out racing that means I’m not shy about telling other boats to “hold your course” or “I am taking your starboard/overtaking you”?
Lots of time spent looking at other boats closing on marks and trying to discern the lay line means I have a pretty good spatial awareness, an internal, meat-based AIS, if you will. This means if I see a potential collision, *and I have right of way as per COLREGS*, I will not hesitate to make my intentions clear to other boats.
This may or may not include slowing down, but usually not.
I agree with the preference for trawler-types over spastically helmed sailboats with dopey skippers. A boat like a Monk 36 will track like a streetcar and can be dealt with even in a restricted channel.
Jacques Landry September 4, 2012 at 11:41 am
Right on John.
I was taught a quite similar rule by my late father, but to secure the mainsail clew, not the reef. I have twice seen a failure at that end while sailing, once on a small Kirby 25 (20 years ago) when the tie-up point just separated from the boom, and lately when the outhaul shackle snapped off while crossing between islands in the Caribbeans (few months ago). Both times it saved the day, the boom, whatever was under it and probably my skull! It was very easy to secure the clew with a piece of line so that the sail does not move forward. For the main clew I turn the line twice around the boom so it does not tend to move forward. But that is done before leaving port, not in heavy sea! In fact, it’s permanent as I rarely have to undo the mainsail clew.
Maybe the “expert” has extended the idea of securing the main clew to that of securing the reef clew, and why not in the process save the under-designed reefing system! Pushing a good idea too far has resulted in this monster!
I do exactly as you suggest with the “safety strop”, put in place once the boat is manageable. My main is loose footed, so if I can I tend to make it as tight as possible to reduce the gap between the clew and the boom, although it is not necessary as the leads are just slightly aft of the reef clews.
Another example of a “rule” that can (and often is) taken too far is the idea of letting a lot of chain (or line) on the anchor when in a storm. For sure more chain will hold better, but many “sailors” look at the rule, not it’s implications, and you end up with several boats 30 meters apart with way more chain on the anchor than that 30 meter.
Let see what happens if the wind shifts. Last Christmas I witnessed 3 boats tangled together (and banging each other) in a bay in Martinique. They had all chain out for the night, and woke up in the middle of it with a mess. They had to let their chain go, use their spare anchors and figure it out the next day. I know as I was the only one with a diving kit and air (or maybe the only to say I did ) and spent 2 hours below undoing anchors and untangling chains. I was not far from them but luckily the wind had shifted in the other direction!
What a fun day that was!
Jacques
Rikki September 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm
That is not a half hitch………
TJ September 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm
You are correct, Rikki. That’s a cow hitch.
Dave Benjamin September 4, 2012 at 5:04 pm
If someone is really concerned about chafe, which I agree is generally not an issue with a well set up system, they could have their sailmaker install a block for the clew reef rather than a cringle. Blocks introduce their own set of issues though and I don’t like seeing our customers add weight and mass to the leech.
On some boats adding an earring is not even remotely practical due to height of the boom.
Reefing should be discussed very thoroughly when replacing a mainsail. If there are cheek blocks on the side of the boom, they may need to be relocated unless the sail designer designs the new main around the location of those blocks. Our experience has been that the blocks are not always well placed and designing the new sail to work with them would violate our best design practices.
John September 5, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Hi Dave,
Both very good points. I particularly agree about not adding too much weight to the leach.
Carolyn Shearlock September 5, 2012 at 9:56 am
According to the “rules” of our insurance company, when Hurricane Marty was approaching, we should have bypassed the wonderful hurricane hole we we right next to, and headed to a marina in La Paz (Mexico) — which also would have meant heading TOWARDS the hurricane.
We opted to stay in the hurricane hole, knowing that our insurance would be void. We were fine; the marina we would have gone to was ripped apart by the storm.
Yes, we then paid off the boat in full (one advantage of having a 20+-year-old boat) and cancelled the insurance and just got a Mexcian liability policy. We vowed that no one else (particularly an insurance company) was going to make decisions for us.
RDE September 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Hi Carolyn,
I had a mate from college that I led down the watery path by taking him sailing 0n my boat. He was a pioneer computer programmer who had summers off. Eventually ended up with a boat in the Caribbean that he spent his summers on, so you know he developed a weather eye.
To make a long story short, he was in the VI when a major Cape Verde hurricane started to look like it might target the area. ( I forget the name of the huricane) Called his insurance agent when he still had two plus days lead time and suggested his inclination was to beat feet toward Trinidad where he had often visited. Of course his agent told him his insurance was invalid unless he had the boat in an approved “hurricane hole.” His stories about surviving a direct hit by a category 5 storm by crawling behind a stone wall after his boat was driven ashore in Culebra would make your hair stand on end.
John September 5, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Hi Carolyn,
You highlight a very disturbing trend: insurance companies trying to skipper the boat from afar. I feel a rant building!
Chris September 5, 2012 at 10:26 am
During the years I taught engineering and programming, my department had a Rule: test questions with the word “never” were always wrong and questions containing the word “always” were never right.
Accordingly we demanded our students give us answers based on knowledge and context, not regurgitated Rules. We would usually structure our exams with several questions on the same topic such that Rules would trip up the unlearned respondent.
Unknowingly we had fallen into company with Colregs 2(b):
” In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.”
Then we have the folk rule, “You should never turn your vessel to port during a crossing situation.” [found in several state mandated boating safety courses]
In 1974, I was captain of the after-guard on a racing yawl. We were legging to windward in anticipation of the preparatory flag — we were not yet racing. Ahead of us approached a burdened boat. To leeward and ahead was a competitor on the same point of sail as we were. Suddenly, we heard his jib rattle and within seconds, we had t-boned him, rolled his spreaders into the water, launch two of his crew overboard. Our lookout’s shout of warning was lost to us as he jumped overboard to avoid death.
At the inquest, when asked why he had tacked to starboard into our path when he could have fallen off to port behind the burdened (and clueless) crossing traffic, the captain who had takced responsed “One never turns to port during a crossing situation.” He was a retired Navy captain who had been racing sailboats for 41 years.
I found another crew berth.
Parenthetically, I find that experts these days seem to have far less expertise than one should have to be characterized an expert. I also find that critical thinking — suspension of judgement/acceptance — until many sources are considered doesn’t seem to be surviving the “must be true, I read it online” phenomenon.
Common sense is also suffering from the reinvention of the commons. We have more ways to be stupid these days. It is common sense not to be using a cellphone while piloting a vessel through congested traffic, but people are dying because others are doing just that.
Re-reading the above, I probably should eat breakfast or at least have my tea before I type something like this.
John September 5, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Hi Chris,
Don’t change a thing, before breakfast seems to work well as far as we are concerned.
John Armitage September 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm
A minor point regarding your photograph of a ‘strop’: I would have tied the last turn in the opposite direction, so the two turns make a clove hitch rather than a lark’s-head.
John September 5, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Hi John,
Each to their own, of course, but tied like I have shown, the knot is the classic round turn and two half hitches, a knot that I learned 50 years ago in sea-scouts. You don’t see it used much these days, but it is one of my favorites. The reason for tying the two half hitches in opposite directions is that it is much easier to untie after it comes under load, than it would be if you tie a clove hitch on the standing part.
(It is interesting to note that Wikipedia has the knot tied your way, but I’m pretty sure that the way I was taught was as shown in my photo. Anyway, it works for me.)
Derek H September 5, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Another “rule” that is bandied about among cruisers who are heading to the Red Sea we learned when we went is: “Always travel in a convoy.” I guess it’s misery loves company b/c by travelling in a convoy through pirate territory you ensure the following: 1) you only travel as fast as the slowest boat, thereby spending even more time in the danger zone, and 2) as a group, you are a much easier target for the pirates to see.
I never understood the mass hysteria that renders otherwise independent thinking people as dumb as a box of hammers.
We went solo, fast and dark (no moon). Better yet, the new rule should be: Don’t go there at all!
You might, if you are bored, put up a post inviting favorite rants as this is definitely one of mine.
Cheers.
Derek H
RDE September 6, 2012 at 12:24 pm
The tragic loss of Ned Cabot (Northwest Passage and Greenland veteran) on this mornings’ news provides the motivation to take a closer look at cockpit design. Without knowing the details, it appears that Cabot was not clipped in, and had just come on watch when the boat was knocked down and he was washed overboard.
The boat was a J46, with a not atypical cruiser/racer cockpit.
1- Starting from the companionway, the boat has a moderate bridge deck, small by the standards of twin aft stateroom boats, but large enough to require bending over as you enter under the dodger, thus putting yourself in a less athletically balanced position. A bridge deck like this has no function except to keep water out of the interior when the common cheap drop board system is used for closure. Compare that to the Boreal door and tell me which you’d rather suffer a knockdown with.
2- The cockpit is relatively long and straight sided, with low coamings facilitating winch handling. How the jackline system (if it existed) was arranged is unknown, but a cockpit with taller backrests would certainly be more secure and comfortable.
3- The traveler is arranged as a bridge at the height of the seats, requiring one to step up and over it to get to the wheel. Argument #1 for a hard dodger strong enough to carry mainsheet loads, even at some loss of traveler effectiveness.
4- If the helmsman wants to change sail trim even by a millimeter he has to clamber up and around the “ego” wheel.
5- The helm area of the cockpit has a large wheel and no coamings, and is at the very aft end of the boat. If the going is at all wet your butt will be wet as well. Because of the size of the wheel, there is absolutely nothing to hang onto except the wheel, regardless of whether you are seated or standing.
A cockpit design like this is eminently suited for weekend cruising and Wednesday night beer can races, but is it really what you’d choose to go to Greenland with, or to make the November trek south from Newport to the Caribbean?
John September 7, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Hi Richard,
We knew Ned, although not well. His death also feels very close since he was completing a cruise that we have made and in waters that we have traversed at least a dozen times. In fact we were in exactly that place almost exactly one year ago. I guess for us the overwhelming feeling is that this could have happened to to either of us. All it takes is the wrong set of circumstances.
I think you are exactly right in your concerns about cockpit layout and design. I have always liked the J46 and the J44 which it was based on, but, as you point out, the cockpit is better suited to full crew racing than short handed cruising.
Just one point that I would differ on: I think it is a little harsh to imply that the only reason for a large diameter wheel is “ego”. Large wheels have a lot of advantages including more leverage in big seas and being more comfortable to steer with when sitting outboard for visibility. Having said that, do they belong on an offshore cruising boat? Not if their presence will impede safe movement around the cockpit, which as you point out, they often do.
No doubt we will learn more about exactly what happened as time goes on.
RDE November 1, 2012 at 5:31 pm
I’m sure many people have wondered why the captain of the Bounty chose to put to sea in the known presence of Hurricane Sandy rather than remaining in port for a few more days. Since he and a crew member lost their lives in the sinking of the vessel, we never expected to know the reasons for his decision.
However in this interview recorded last August the captain leaves no doubt about his motives. “We chase hurricanes—-try to get as close to the eye as possible” http://www.sailinganarchy.com/index_page1.php
In my limited experience the more coast guard licenses and stars on his shoulders a captain has the more likely he is to be incapable of making rational decisions and become captive of his ego. Thought it was just a reflection of my small sample size, but I’m starting to wonder!