Missing yacht "Nina" presumed sunk off New Zealand

Until his fatal cruise it wasn't. As I said, this is a business where you often only get to make one mistake. He miscalculated Sandy. A lot of people did, and we all have probably miscalculated a storm at one time or another. As for the condition of the vessel I DK how much of that falls on him or how much falls on his engineer or others. He can no longer answer that for us. What I do know is that he logged many miles under that keel. I wouldn't have a clue on a vessel like Bounty. I respect all tall ship captains.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with K1W1 on this one. As I heard it, the captain of the bounty tried to get a uscg passenger rating done and failed miserably. He was told the ship wasn't seaworthy without major repairs. He chose to head to Florida where he was going to lie about that failure and load the boat up with handicaped children. Nothing there is worthy of any respect. As I see it, he was stopped from putting more people's lives at risk.

Maybe not the best first post, but it's my opinion anyway.

"As I heard it" is never a good way to introduce yourself. That's scuttlebut. Since we can't ask the captain, do you have any proof to back up that accusation. The U.S.C.G. has centralized record keeping. I don't see how he could hope to "Lie" to the CG and get away with it. Best he could hope for would be a less strict inspector, but that inspector would be aware of the previous failure, and moving a boat 1,200nm is an expensive way to cheat for a maybe. Unless you're also saying he had an inspector in his pocket there. I've been on several boats that failed certification (in Greenport as a matter of fact). They can get a bit bored and picky sometimes. Often a minor repair and a different inspector made the difference.

Just about everything I heard (or read, if you like that better) was from a thread on this site. Links to reports and interviews, and testimony from those who knew the captain well. Maybe lie was a slight exaggeration, but he knew the ship had major problems, and intended to load passengers. He was going to use the "for charity" excuse so the cert wouldn't be needed. His crew knew what he was doing too. Didn't matter how many lives they put at risk to try and save the ship. A good captain thinks first about the safety of everyone on board, he did nothing of the sort.

You had me go back and re-read that entire thread http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/general-yachting-discussion/19850-why-did-bounty-sink-5.html
Maybe you can point me to where those accusations were made, "As I heard it, the captain of the bounty tried to get a uscg passenger rating done and failed miserably. He was told the ship wasn't seaworthy without major repairs. He chose to head to Florida where he was going to lie about that failure and load the boat up with handicaped children." From what I read this vessel was left to rot after the movie, and this captain worked tirelessly to bring her back to life on a limited budget. She would not certify for Windjammer cruises, but she'd sailed across the Atlantic and Pacific and yes, through hurricanes, safely. The captain and the owner did what they could to make the boat earn enough to be preserved. There's no crime in doing charitable cruises. To say that this captain planned to lie to the CG and try to cover up a failed inspection is irresponsible on your part.
Again, I'm NOT saying he made the right decision to head into Sandy. I sure wouldn't have. This captain had a lot of tall ship experience, and he had a tremendous amount of experience with this ship. He paid for his misjudgement with his life, his vessel and the life of a crewmember. That doesn't undo what he did over the course of his career.

One of the links led to interviews from the crew. They knew the boat had safety issues. They said even the mildest wave had water coming into the boat. It was a rotted out hulk that shouldn't have been floated until it was repaired correctly. It was mentioned that he was trying to get to Florida on time so he could load it with handicaped children. A boat as unsafe as that one, and then planning to load it with handicaped people was just insane. In that situation, would you allow your children/grandchildren on it? Even more so when the captain brags about chasing storms? There is a difference between trying to save a historic vessel and having an obsession with trying to prove that an old movie prop is a decent ship. Also, how much of this came from trying to save his job? If the ship was scrapped, who would hire him? His storm chaser mentality probably excluded him from quite a few jobs, and the majority of his career was based off of that ship. Not a whole lot of tall ship captain jobs running around, are there? No, over the years, he came to think of the ship as his own, and would do whatever he could to keep it. Even murder an inexperienced volunteer crew. The "engineer" was a retired auto mechanic, no nautical training. There is a whole list of screw ups that a responsible captain wouldn't have allowed, but an obsessed lunatic would.

I don't doubt in the least that the man devoted his life to that ship. That can be worthy of respect, but not when that devotion turns to obsession and endangers the lives of an amature crew who idolized the captain, let alone all the kids whose lives he put in danger over the years. I don't mean to offend you or what you believe, just stating my views on the situation.

Oh, I didn't say he meant to lie to the cg, but to the parents of the handicaped children. Tell them it's safe when the ship wasn't seaworthy.

Yes it does. He gambled the crew's lives for his ego. He lost and killed a starry eyed little girl who thought the same way you do - that his past proved his future.

The man was a dangerous fool. He killed a young woman who could not tell the difference between experience and wisdom. Thanks to the courage of a coast guard rescue team, more did not fall victim to his ego.

His elimination from the sailing community is only regrettable in that he won't have to face a court of inquiry, his peers and the family of his victim -and their lawyers.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

You are in a very large club.

Read the posts in some of the professional mariner's groups like ********.

Robin Walbridge was not just the captain of a poorly maintained, ill-equipped, and dangerous replica of Bounty, he was a poorly maintained, ill-equipped and dangerous replica of a captain.

So true. At least he was stopped before he was able to risk the lives of anymore people who didn't know any better. I'm sorry that anyone had to die to expose him for the reckless fraud, masquerading as a captain.

Well, you two can go ahead with your crucifixion of a person who can't defend himself. God help any of us to be judged only by our worst judgement call. I DK many people who could pass that test. I probably would have failed by the time I was 17. But I guess you two can.

If the bilge pumps had stayed in operation, if..if...if... this would have been one of the adventures of the Bounty and her intrepid captain and crew.

As for his getting a thrill going through a storm, we're all adrenaline junkies in this business. Knowing how close we've all come to dying and beating Mother Nature is a thrill. To this day I vividly remember every big storm I've been in. That's way different than being reckless or having a death wish though.

Every time we take a boatout we make a judgement call about whether it's suitable for the intended voyage. I guess we've all been right so far since we're still here.

I've done a lot of stupid stuff over the years, lots of it when I was a kid. But I would never have shown total disregard for the safety of volunteers who know nothing about the situation. A captain's first responsibility is the safety of the ship and those aboard. Also, it's been a while since I read that thread, but I seem to remember the owner told the captain to stay in port. At sea the captains word is law, but in the harbor, the owner of the ship should be the one making the call. Wasn't he also warned against leaving by the coast guard? Something about no matter how competent the captain is, an all newbie crew might not be the best to bring into the eye of a storm. No matter how good a captain is, the crew has to be as well. Add that to known structural issues, generator issues, propulsion issues, fuel issues and leaks, well, it was a suicide cruise. And let's not even get into the fact that he said he was going to run from the storm and go one direction, but instead ran straight into the storm by deviating from his original plan. And, wasn't the route he took far more dangerous in bad weather? I've raced motorcycles, cars, boats and planes, defying death can be fun, but I would never be so irresponsible as to bring total newbies along. I've dropped my ch801 into tiny clearings, sometimes because I've been told it couldn't be done. The one and only time I did it with someone else in the plane, it was a medic, and we were going after an injured hunter in Alaska. I told him before hand, it's risky. His reply was "that's my job, if you can do it, lets go." Nowhere near my most complicated landing, but by far the most nerve wrecking because there were 2 lives in my hands that weren't my own. If I screw up and kill myself, that's one thing. If someone else suffers at my hands, that I could not live with. And I wouldn't want to die with that on my hands either.

Yeah, one look at that photo of Nina and I'm scratching my head, she looked rubbish, the sails are a good give away... Plus a crossing from NZ to Aus, it would have to be a great window of weather! Cheers

Far