there was a great post here about Survival on a Crippled Love Boat: post

one of ventura county's residents put a lot of lives in danger on a NOT crippled love boat by pulling this stunt. it's not at all funny. there are a few lessons to be learned from this experience.
go here: news story

"If you cruise, don't drink. If you drink, don't cruise."

I think the story is a bit exaggerated. I seriously doubt you could punch enough holes in the hull of a large vessel like this by dropping a stern anchor to sink the vessel. Still, what a loser.

I think I have been by his business mentioned in the article - definitely a loser.

Where are the Denver police when you need them?!
-Blast

i think a big concern would be the anchor chain wrapping around the propeller and dislodging the propeller(s) / shaft(s). that's a big hole(s). and if before that happened the shaft flung the wrapped chain / anchor around like a nunchuk...

Even if that happened, I presume even cruise ships have watertight bulkheads. We probably need reasonable knowledge of the ship's layout and construction to determine if the anchor rode could foul the props.

that's what i thought.

the fbi apparently thinks otherwise: l. a. times

What a wanker.

Dropping anchor when a ship is making way , even outside a sea-lane, is a fine way to tear stuff up. those systems are designed to keep a ship stopped. They are not designed to handle use as a speed brake.

Do that sort of thing in a busy sea-lane the sudden loss of speed, loss of control and position could end up as a major collision, fire, mayhem (OMG ... Save my baby), sinking/s, and worse of all ... months and months of talking with lawyers and insurance people. Better to drown, I think.

If he has a 50' yacht what the hell is he doing on a cruise ship? Cruises are not cheap and for that sort of money you could hire a couple of deck ornaments as 'crew'. Pay them right and you can drop anchor any time you want.

I read the story this morning and I am still puzzled. Frankly, I suspect the FBI was misquoted or is blowing smoke.

I am always just a little bit skeptical about the average news story. There is rarely enough detail to know what is really going on. Consider as a typical example the ongoing thread about the lost elk hunter and the questions commenters have raised about missing information.


This story about the anchor is rather typical. For example, what is the size of the anchor and where is its location with respect to the critical parts of the vessel (like the props)? This is stuff that will come out during legal proceedings, but it rarely makes it into the news.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The anchors of cruise ships weigh 15 to 25 tons (not including the chain), and they're pointy at each end. And you don't think one of these things (esp swinging) could do some damage to a ship???

Drop it on this jerk's head.

Sue

The Titanic had Seperated,Water-Tight Bulkheads but, Only if the Ports/hatches are closed!Look what happened there!It's possible this ship has a Double-Bulked hull,though water will still access the Bilge,which would activate the Bilge pumps float-nodes,water would be Ejected,Usually on or Near the Aft deck or Fantail,& thru the weep ports below the Gunnels,at damn near High Velocity,Normally at about 200psi! This Guy should be Keel-Hauled,whilst Drop-Anchor is Deployed!

The anchors and their mountings are designed so the anchors can be dropped without hitting anything. (or at least should be).

The real issue is: What happens when those anchors hit the bottom? Firstly, As Art pointed out, if the anchor actually gets properly stuck you will be very lucky if the only thing that breaks is the chain. (And that is the way I would design things - to let the anchor mountings take considerably more strain than the chains).

Secondly, dropping an anchor could seriously conflict with the ships navigation. Which is NOT a trivial thing if you're close to land or in busy ship lanes or just happens to pass near another ship. The forces involved when handling a ship this size is NOT something you play with.

Dropping the anchor is an act of emergency for situations with no propulsion. Usually, the anchor drags along the bottom with considerably resistance (friction) digging into the mud, slowing but not stopping the ship's movement.

OK here is my question,

how the heck did he get to do this? I am not nearly aware enough of boats and ships to know what would happen if the anchor had grabbed on to something. But from a security aspect, how did this drunk guy get into an area where this can be done?

I am truly sorry that anyone was put into any form of danger and that anyone was put at risk. You would think that if dropping an anchor is a dangerous as we think, that there would be more security to prevent it happening (beyond a camera) when someone hits a fifth of vodka and is feeling all nautical.

What's interesting to me is the legal aspect. The ship was in international waters near Mexico. The FBI of the U.S. is prosecuting. I thought the country in which the ship is registered has jurisdiction for criminal acts on a ship. So, either the ship is registered in the U.S. or the FBI got jurisdiction some other way. Extradition? Long arm of the law?

this event is a great education experience on many levels - especially in light of the previous post. that's why i posted this.

in this case the fbi has jurisdiction. go here for details: Crime on the High Seas

this guy fits.

so if we do want to cruise we may want to ensure we come under their jurisdiction.

My sense is that if this case happened off the coast of South America and the FBI did NOT have jurisdiction, then the news probably wouldn't even make it to a blog. The guy would probably just disappear..."Hey, whatever happened to that guy Rick Ehlert? He just kind of fell off the face of the earth."

'The guy would probably just disappear..."Hey, whatever happened to that guy Rick Ehlert? He just kind of fell off the face of the earth."'

A. Might not be a bad idea... it's cheaper.

B. It also might explain some shipboard disappearances.

Sue