Go Back  The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > BOATING FORUMS > The Boating Forum
Reload this Page >

50 Miles Offshore in a 20' a Bad Idea?

Notices
Like Tree127Likes

50 Miles Offshore in a 20' a Bad Idea?

Old 10-04-2017, 03:41 AM
  #101  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 558
Default

Originally Posted by HOmer72 View Post
Search my other posts on this topic. I'm not going to continue to quote what each of you should know if you intend to participate in what should be an intelligent conversation. Per 100,000 boaters the odds of death are half that of per 100,000 drivers. Further if you remove new boaters from the equation it drops dramatically. There are zero statistics that support a 25 is safer than a 20 and that 50 miles is more dangerous than 5 feet. As others have pointed out, each has their own set of dangers. (ref: professional baseball player hitting jetties in 30' boat within the past year).

The beam and the length and the weight can all work in your favor in certain situations and against you in others. Whomever made the F350 comment is just silly as they aren't the safest vehicles on the road. Technically the group of vehicles without deaths are mid size luxury SUVs, not large trucks. Handling matters.

All we have are statistics, your old man and the sea tails are just that. What's funny is you are still here. You say how dangerous it is and how scary it was but here you sit typing. Is it possible you just perceived it was more dangerous than it was?

I think believing you can do more because you have a bigger boat is far more ignorant, you should take the same care and caution no matter what size boat you have.

LOL...take the new boaters out of the equation...did I read that right? Why not just take most all boaters except very seasoned captains out of the boating side of the equation to further bolster your argument. And why not just include rookie auto drivers and the elderly on the other side of the equation. That will really shore up your absurd argument.

So let’s have some stats comparing apples to apples, instead of just gratuitous assertions...
jfbetz is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:07 AM
  #102  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Carolina del Norte
Posts: 317
Default

You can't make memories like these from the couch.

tunanut is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:45 AM
  #103  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ocala
Posts: 2,755
Default

Excluding sudden illness, people die offshore from drowning, exposure and lack of communication to rescue. All can be negated with adequate, modern lifesaving devices and sound decisions made by the skipper on the water he or she is navigating. If vessel size had anything to do with it the souls that perished on the El Faro would still be with us. That said, the boys who perished on the 20' SeaCraft did so for the same relevant failures..... poor decisions and ultimately inadequate emergency equipment. Again, nothing at all to do with boat size or distance from shore.
kmoose is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 05:37 AM
  #104  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 777
Default

Tunanut....I cant help but cringe for your TTop lol... nice work!
finnedfanatic is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 05:38 AM
  #105  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 558
Default

“Again, nothing at all to do with boat size or distance from shore.”

So where do you draw the line on a competent 50 mile offshore rig....20’, 18’, 16’? Hell, I’m sure someone’s done it in a13. But suggesting about size, and distance from shore is irrelevant.... you are in the very extreme minority.


The OP’s original question was whether it’s a good idea to take an older 20’ boat, with questionable build quality, with marginal safety equipment, marginal fuel capacity, and a 22 year old engine out 50 miles offshore. Can it be done? Sure. Is it a good idea? Probably not. Ask any career guardsmen
jfbetz is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 06:19 AM
  #106  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,039
Default

That black max is going to get 2ish MPG in fair conditions and less in big water. You're going to need 50 gallons of fuel MINIMUM just to get there and back assuming the conditions are good. If it kicks up or it's sloppy coming or going you could need 80+ gallons of gas in order to safely make it.
Jim311 is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 06:31 AM
  #107  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,123
Default

It is funny when the single engine crowd gets all defensive and thinks people are somehow telling them they are doing something dangerous and they take it as an insult instead of rationally realizing that it isn't a smart thing to do.

Anyone that thinks two boats in the same condition but one is a twin engine center console boat and one is a single engine bay boat are the same safety wise offshore is a moron. There is a list of things that can take both boats out of commission like a fire, etc. The list of things that can take a single engine bay boat out is longer than the list of things that can take a larger twin engine boat out. The most obvious of which is if you lose 1 engine on a twin boat, you can still get in. You lose one engine on a single, you are screwed. Same goes for a battery or electrical situation, etc. Same goes for the gunnel height being lower on a bay boat thus more susceptible to being swamped. The list goes on. Give all thing equal, it is safer being in a larger boat with redundant systems than a smaller boat.

If you want to go offshore that far in a small boat, don't be surprised when something goes wrong and you are screwed. If something bad can happen offshore, if you go enough, it eventually will.
Bullboxer is online now  
Old 10-04-2017, 06:52 AM
  #108  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 7,947
Default

As it will with any boat .....
HOmer72 and Ducksnutz like this.
bluewaterpirate is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 06:55 AM
  #109  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ocala
Posts: 2,755
Default

Originally Posted by jfbetz View Post
The OP’s original question was whether it’s a good idea to take an older 20’ boat, with questionable build quality, with marginal safety equipment, marginal fuel capacity, and a 22 year old engine out 50 miles offshore. Can it be done? Sure. Is it a good idea? Probably not. Ask any career guardsmen
Good point, but I will add that the same applies to any size vessel and not only a 20 footer. There is no size vessel that negates increased risk when precautions are not applied equally for the persons on board.

A 13' Whaler with a valise, gumby suites (if water temp dictates), GPS enabled Epirb, and a waterproof handheld vhf would be "safer" 50 nautical offshore than many larger boats out there that are lesser prepared. That said, equipment alone won't mean a thing without the right skipper. A capsized or compromised vessel that is properly equipped should not be a life threating event with current, modern safety equipment in US waters within SARs range.
kmoose is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 07:05 AM
  #110  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ocala
Posts: 2,755
Default

I think there is some confusion between safety and expensive inconvenience. Engine and system failures would be rarely considered a threat to anyone's safety. It sucks but nobody is dying from a spun hub offshore.
kmoose is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 07:15 AM
  #111  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 407
Default

The twin vs single engine argument is interesting. Once upon a time I was part of a DOD study group and later selection committee on backup electrical power reliability for critical DOD command and control facilities.

Other than the obvious hardening and physical security requirements the largest single threat to power loss with redundant engines is single point failure nodes. For example, a properly operated and maintained multi-engine power system fed by a single fuel tank has about the same reliability as a single engine plant. Another example is engine starting systems. Without isolated dedicated starting systems there is no redundancy.

Bottom line is that twin engines without separate fuel and starting systems are about as reliable as a single engine. You can argue and discuss the issue to death but careful analysis accompanied by advanced computer modeling tells the story without ambiguity.
HOmer72 and Ducksnutz like this.
ButchDavis is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 07:21 AM
  #112  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Annapolis, MD
Posts: 558
Default

Originally Posted by kmoose View Post
Good point, but I will add that the same applies to any size vessel and not only a 20 footer. There is no size vessel that negates increased risk when precautions are not applied equally for the persons on board.

A 13' Whaler with a valise, gumby suites (if water temp dictates), GPS enabled Epirb, and a waterproof handheld vhf would be "safer" 50 nautical offshore than many larger boats out there that are lesser prepared. That said, equipment alone won't mean a thing without the right skipper. A capsized or compromised vessel that is properly equipped should not be a life threating event with current, modern safety equipment in US waters within SARs range.
I suppose you could design a set of circumstances whereby a rickety old, poorly equipped 30-footer is less safe than a well equipped, well maintained 20-footer, but that’s not the circumstances the OP presented.

I would certainly feel more comfortable in Bluewaterpirates rig, than some much larger boats; a bit more than a bay boat, meticulously maintained with an efficient engine to match, electronics on top of electronics, a back up plan, a boat that won’t sink, and some good experience.

But other than that, I don’t need to fish to put food on the table. And outside of a larger rig, with twins...I’ll get my rockfish closer to shore, and my Tuna and Mahi at the fresh fish market...

Peace
jfbetz is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 07:29 AM
  #113  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Venice, FL
Posts: 664
Default

Originally Posted by kmoose View Post
I think there is some confusion between safety and expensive inconvenience. Engine and system failures would be rarely considered a threat to anyone's safety. It sucks but nobody is dying from a spun hub offshore.
50 miles out you certainly could. If you lose propulsion and can't anchor.....
Windwood is online now  
Old 10-04-2017, 07:46 AM
  #114  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 7,947
Default

True ..... but better than anchoring is a controlled drift that's why I carry one of these. Anchoring offshore can be a challenge even with power especially in 200' and greater of water. I carry 550' of anchor line connected to 25' of anchor chain just in case. But if you can mange to set the anchor then you have but one option if the weather goes south and and the ocean kicks up and that's cut line.

It's an interesting discussion good for all to read.

Ducksnutz likes this.
bluewaterpirate is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 07:52 AM
  #115  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 971
Default

I'm usually a proponent of running offshore in bay boat , with planning and proper equipment, it's a lot of fun. XM weather is a life saver get it!
Having said that , 50 miles would be out of my comfort zone.
RUFcaptain is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 08:15 AM
  #116  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: South East Louisiana
Posts: 10,460
Default

Originally Posted by bluewaterpirate View Post
If I remember correctly poor seamanship, attempting to retrieve an anchor by way of the stern (causing the boat to take water over the transom & finally broach) & choosing a bad day to venture offshore contributed significantly to this unfortunate accident not the length of the boat. Additionally they no EPRIB or other survival equipment.
Poor seamanship capsized the boat, but not having a good ditch plan is what got them killed.

If they had at the very least an InReach, they would have more than likely survived.
midcap is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 08:21 AM
  #117  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 106
Default

I was 35 miles off of Pillar Point harbor in Northern California in my 15' Dauntless last Wednesday. Unfortunately the albacore were elsewhere.

We also take a 20.5' Bayliner Trophy (Kai Na Hokie) all over Maui County. It's a decent boat (for a ratty pile of crap), and we do reasonably well for ono and mahi.

Pick your days, do your research, make a plan, know your boat, carry the proper gear, keep an eye on the weather, and don't over-stay your welcome.

It is interesting that the "meh, just get Seatow" crowd is under-represented on this thread.
kmoose, HTJ and Ducksnutz like this.
hoverducky is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 09:01 AM
  #118  
HTJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 9,744
Default

Originally Posted by hammer79 View Post
I always thought that the boats in the 60's and 70's where much smaller and people where heading offshore in 20' something boats commonly and with very little electronics and not nearly as reliable engines. What happened? Maybe I'm misinformed or maybe alot of them died? Maybe an old timer can chime in.
Naw we're still here. The big change I see over the last 20/30/40 years has been a huge increase in dependency on save your bacon electronics vs self sufficiency, and my all time favorite - having a Seatow account. I remember going offshore out of Port A in my uncles ancient 19' Glastron with an 85 Chrysler motor. He had a depth flasher, compass and nothing else.

Self sufficiency is present 24/7 and not subject to failure from salt water intrusion or a loss of battery power, or dependent on a radio call to someone else to save your ass. The benefit to the bigger/faster/more reliable boat isn't a safety thing but being able to run farther and faster with a higher level of comfort.
kmoose, HOmer72 and Ducksnutz like this.
HTJ is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 09:02 AM
  #119  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Posts: 1,360
Default

Originally Posted by ButchDavis View Post
The twin vs single engine argument is interesting. Once upon a time I was part of a DOD study group and later selection committee on backup electrical power reliability for critical DOD command and control facilities.

Other than the obvious hardening and physical security requirements the largest single threat to power loss with redundant engines is single point failure nodes. For example, a properly operated and maintained multi-engine power system fed by a single fuel tank has about the same reliability as a single engine plant. Another example is engine starting systems. Without isolated dedicated starting systems there is no redundancy.

Bottom line is that twin engines without separate fuel and starting systems are about as reliable as a single engine. You can argue and discuss the issue to death but careful analysis accompanied by advanced computer modeling tells the story without ambiguity.
The people in this thread don't care about scientific study. They have somehow used some ridiculous "time used" theory to discount the statistic that boating is safer than driving. The fact remains that the odds of dying from boating are less than from driving, yet every day you drive. Yes you do it far more often but that doesn't change the fact that driving poses a greater risk to your life than boating. I didn't want to get into all the breakdown but people would rather come up with their redneck math to somehow make boating a far more dangerous activity.

I didn't include the statistics about new boaters because getting into any specifics about the actual studies starts to become very complicated, I mentioned it because the vast majority of the people on this board are experienced boaters so don't fall into the category of boating in general, and it was just a piece of information I thought you might find interesting. Death from boat failure doesn't even register, it's almost all operator error. Hence the mentioning new boaters. Where as in cars it is far less operator error than with boating (i.e. you have less control over the outcome).

In the end all that matters is that given 100,000 people you are more likely to die from driving than boating. Other than putting on a safety belt what do you do?

So to get back to the original post. You are as safe as someone in a $1 million dollar Hydrasports 50' Center console as long as you know what you are doing. Possibly get a kicker on a separate tank and have 2 engines that actually make a difference. (I still find it entertaining that the one cracked hull upside down boat in this thread is a 26+ boat with twin engines).
HOmer72 is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 09:15 AM
  #120  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,123
Default

Originally Posted by HOmer72 View Post
The people in this thread don't care about scientific study. They have somehow used some ridiculous "time used" theory to discount the statistic that boating is safer than driving. The fact remains that the odds of dying from boating are less than from driving, yet every day you drive. Yes you do it far more often but that doesn't change the fact that driving poses a greater risk to your life than boating. I didn't want to get into all the breakdown but people would rather come up with their redneck math to somehow make boating a far more dangerous activity.

I didn't include the statistics about new boaters because getting into any specifics about the actual studies starts to become very complicated, I mentioned it because the vast majority of the people on this board are experienced boaters so don't fall into the category of boating in general, and it was just a piece of information I thought you might find interesting. Death from boat failure doesn't even register, it's almost all operator error. Hence the mentioning new boaters. Where as in cars it is far less operator error than with boating (i.e. you have less control over the outcome).

In the end all that matters is that given 100,000 people you are more likely to die from driving than boating. Other than putting on a safety belt what do you do?

So to get back to the original post. You are as safe as someone in a $1 million dollar Hydrasports 50' Center console as long as you know what you are doing. Possibly get a kicker on a separate tank and have 2 engines that actually make a difference. (I still find it entertaining that the one cracked hull upside down boat in this thread is a 26+ boat with twin engines).
This is retarded. A 20' boat can get swamped by waves a 50' boat can handle.
mdees88 likes this.
Bullboxer is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread