Other than weather, why have a lower helm?

[ranger58sb]

But then I didn't have a problem seeing them from the cockpit of my sailboat either. If sailors can spot crab pots, deadheads debri etc from the very back of a boat, a foot above the water, looking through sails, rigging, and a dodger, why can't power boaters see them from the forward 1/3 of their boat, 4' above the water, looking through a solid window? I suppose it is just the speed they are traveling?

Partly speed restricts reaction time, but also partly because up on plane, the bow rises enough so I can't see anything close to the bow of the boat. I'm not short, but if I were two feet taller, that might not have been so bad

I think mostly the protected prop on sailboats (keel, etc.) helps manage the situation, too. Unprotected props on a twin-screw planing hull are at mostly always risk. And I can tell you the boat will stop RIGHT NOW (as will the engine, in some case, apparently) if an unseen crab pot warp wraps itself around a prop shaft.

-Chris

 

[psneeld]

2 things....

And I have a lot of running time on fly bridges, pilot houses and lower helms of hundreds of different make boats.

All bets are off at night. It is the rare vessel that you can see well enough straight ahead through anything but air at night and miss floating pots. If I had to run at night through a pot area, didn't need radar, and the weather allowed...I would be insane not to run from the fly bridge. One requirement for my boat was an opening door or large window next to the helm to stick my head out...because no matter how dark, seeing through glass at night just is a hinderance. So I do have a reasonable backup. One advantage that I have is I still have 20/20 with exceptional night vision....for many...night really is an issue without electronic assistance.

Now of course, most of the time I know that I will not see the pot marker I hit anyway, so I really don't give a rat's rear end running at night, experience has told me that I will wind up hitting something sooner or later, staring ahead into the dark may reduce my chances, but I am not sure it is all that much.

I just cut off a section of crab pot line from my prop this week. Was on there from the Albemarle sound back in May. Fortunately they don't affect my vessel. But it was very choppy that day and a struggle to just stay at the wheel. I missed seeing quite a few and ran over them, only caught the one though. I was driving from the lower helm that usually has great visability, but that day the fly bridge might have held the edge due to a better vantage point looking down into the chop.

So all this discussion about seeing or hitting pots to me just suggests that a lot of people either run in perfect conditions or run in areas of few pots (definitely not the Chesapeake or Maine)....or more realistically, there are many pits that they run over or by and just never saw or snagged them.

Often it's the semi ghost pot where the pot has drug to the point where the float is under water either from depth, current or a combination. Those can get you no matter where you sit.

Often widow makers are the same, only luck is really why you see them, hence the nickname.

 

[Peter B]

Partly speed restricts reaction time, but also partly because up on plane, the bow rises enough so I can't see anything close to the bow of the boat. I'm not short, but if I were two feet taller, that might not have been so bad. -Chris

Now that is I think one really relevant point in this visibility issue. At displacement speeds our bow is not angled up, so visibility from lower helm no real issue. On the semi-plane - different story, and I can definitely understand the semi-planers preferring to pilot from up top. Not only that, at those speeds the ride is sort of smoothed out, so they don't roll around and magnify the movement up there anything like as much as happens when a displacement hull is rocked and rolled by wakes or a seaway when you are up top.

 

[Peter B]

Very interesting discussion, it may be awhile before I have my boat built. But I'm of the opinion at this point that it's highly unlikely I'll want a flying bridge.
Now bear in mind, my boat will not be over 50', unless of course I win the lottery.
I see that area as a place to store the dingy and other toys and maybe a place to hang out while on the hook. I view the flying bridge as a "want" and the lower helm as a "necessity". My mind could be changed and will a hundred times before I get to the point of having to make a decision....but thx for the very good input!

Don't forget also the area can be valuable as a place for solar panels, safely out of the way if you don't tread up there, and a not insignificant point if one likes or needs, (like me), to be able to use as much renewable energy for power requirements as possible, and avoid generators etc. I have two panels up there in a relatively out of the way place, but could fit many more if there was no flybridge, which I would willingly part with if it was a simple thing to remove.

See also comments re the flybridge being much more relevant for good visibility if a planing/semi-planing type of vessel, where the bow rises. Nowhere near as important in a displacement vessel.

 

[BandB]

Now that is I think one really relevant point in this visibility issue. At displacement speeds our bow is not angled up, so visibility from lower helm no real issue. On the semi-plane - different story, and I can definitely understand the semi-planers preferring to pilot from up top. Not only that, at those speeds the ride is sort of smoothed out, so they don't roll around and magnify the movement up there anything like as much as happens when a displacement hull is rocked and rolled by wakes or a seaway when you are up top.

I consider bow rise another safety issue in selection of boat for semi-planing or planing boats. It's a matter of both how much and how long. Time to plane and planing speed are important for planing boats. There are some boats that anything between 10 knots and 20 or even 25 knots is a very uncomfortable running angle to me.

 

[caltexflanc]

In many cases sailors don't spot pots and debris but that nice deep keel makes it less of an issue, though not always. I've had a few sailors follow us through the shifting shallows of the cays and keys, the view from the bridge being excellent for that.

 

[Wxx3]

Here in Alaska we wonder "Why other than weather have an upper helm?" Lower windage, lower center of gravity, less roll and the weather is almost never good enough to want to be out in it... I guess it's what your weather is wherever you are located

Though I liked Menzies response also

 

[dhays]

Typical summer morning in the PNW

I actually used the FB that morning for the visibility leaving a tight marina in the dark. I was very happy to drive the boat from inside the PH after that however.

 

[psneeld]

A great example of a nice, well designed bridge and lower station.

Today, 90 degrees, 100 percent humidity....

Inside without a/c on and unable to get the breeze and with the sun shining through the forward windows....miserable. Flying bridge...very nice (just bimini, no sides).

But yet in December when I head south....it's rare that I am on the flying bridge, even when nice enough. Just habit, but every now and then, conditions warrant me driving from the top, so I do.

It really isn't a good and better topic as which works best for you on YOUR boat...some have crappy helm designs...... up, down or both.

 

[AusCan]

I think everyone has a different set of circumstances depending on their climate, age, sea state, hull type, and boat size, and how they use there boat, so the decision of FB or not will never be universal.

IMHO, a flybridge would be a big plus on a twin engined planing boat when cruising at bow-up speeds. Also boats with a rear trunk cabin that impede 360 degree vision.

On a single screw displacement boat with good vision from the lower helm, the slightly better vision is less of a plus. The big negative is the extra windage. It certainly would make docking more of a challenge with a single screw, thruster-less boat on windy days. They also tend to foul the mainsail.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Mainsail??

Fly bridges are for ice cream boats.

 

[psneeld]

Well...my ice cream boat has travelled around 10,000 miles in the last 5 years I have owned it.

How are the sorta sailboat, sorta powerboats doing these days?

 

[MYTraveler]

For visibility, the only thing better than a flybridge is a tower. That said, is used at least 10 x more than the flybridge. The tower gets more use than the flybridge too.

 

[BandB]

For visibility, the only thing better than a flybridge is a tower. That said, is used at least 10 x more than the flybridge. The tower gets more use than the flybridge too.

I could never handle a tower. I will not walk up the steps to it. I know there's nothing to it, but it's one of those heights I can't deal with.

 

[Nomad Willy]

If visibility is the reason for the FB there's not much of a case for them. Most boats seem to be fine to OK on visibility. Look at all the stuff many to most trawlers have on the foredeck to look through or around. If visibility was an issue many would clear the deck. And I don't see that happening.

NT had it right for years .. no stink'in FB. Mark taught me how to talk like that.
OK I've stired the pot enough. Fly bridges are fine as long as the boat's big enough. Something like a GB 36 and similar. Put your saws and claw hammers away ... no FB to remove. I'm still glad someone removed Willy's FB.

 

[Art]

Helm Station Redundancy = Safety-Backup-Helm

I pilot 99.5% on bridge. Start and warm up engines 90% of the time via lower helm in salon so I can listen to engines.

Each helm position has it's high points. For me, upper helm is much preferred to operate from. Lower helm is greatly useful while having salon engine compartment hatches wide open when servicing engines with needs to have them running and put into different rpm or transmission gears.

Having a bridge helm with full dials is just about my #1 boat requirement. Having two fully dialed helms is just about #2!

 

[Miz Trom]

When I was younger, we called it a flying bridge. And that is what it feels like - flying. Put me in the "must have a flying bridge" category.

 

[Peter B]

Mainsail??

Fly bridges are for ice cream boats.

Auscan's boat is a motor-sailer Eric...

 

[O C Diver]

Helm Station Redundancy = Safety-Backup-Helm

Also twice the failure points (steering, shifting and throttle controls).

Ted

 

[Art]

Also twice the failure points (steering, shifting and throttle controls).

Ted

Via your statement regarding two helm-control stations aboard a boat - "Also twice the failure points". I bet you don't like twin screw either. How about twin heads on a boat??

Looking at things in relation to the aside type statement of a "glass half full or half empty" represents a static approach. In reality the fullness (i.e. level of specifics) of that "glass" is that it is nearly always 100% dynamic with its "fullness" level constantly in a mode of flux. Therefore... two is often better than one on most realms of appreciated (sometimes necessary) redundancies so that the "glass" best as possible is never let reach the low, low level of completely empty... even for a dynamic second!

Regarding the general plan of creation: Please note that humans (and, most living, breathing entities on planet Earth) were designed to have available a nearly perfectly balanced Roschach Inkblot type of useful outcome. Wherein we have two opposites (redundancies) of many needed exterior appendages... including arms, hands, legs, feet, eyes , ears... etc...... Even trees have similar redundancy of branches on opposite sides to accommodate the useful balance that gravity provides.

Now it is true in relation to as you mention "... twice the failure points." However - Redundancies for most items create a balance (chance of use and continuation) that can not be beaten, especially by having just one item available - of nearly anything!

Happy Redundancy Daze! - Art

 

[O C Diver]

Via your statement regarding two helm-control stations aboard a boat - "Also twice the failure points". I bet you don't like twin screw either. How about twin heads on a boat??

Looking at things in relation to the aside type statement of a "glass half full or half empty" represents a static approach. In reality the fullness (i.e. level of specifics) of that "glass" is that it is nearly always 100% dynamic with its "fullness" level constantly in a mode of flux. Therefore... two is often better than one on most realms of appreciated (sometimes necessary) redundancies so that the "glass" best as possible is never let reach the low, low level of completely empty... even for a dynamic second!

Regarding the general plan of creation: Please note that humans (and, most living, breathing entities on planet Earth) were designed to have available a nearly perfectly balanced Roschach Inkblot type of useful outcome. Wherein we have two opposites (redundancies) of many needed exterior appendages... including arms, hands, legs, feet, eyes , ears... etc...... Even trees have similar redundancy of branches on opposite sides to accommodate the useful balance that gravity provides.

Now it is true in relation to as you mention "... twice the failure points." However - Redundancies for most items create a balance (chance of use and continuation) that can not be beaten, especially by having just one item available - of nearly anything!

Happy Redundancy Daze! - Art

You really need to consider a reduction in caffeine.

2 heads don't adversely impact each other (if properly setup). A failed helm pump or hose, a jammed shift or throttle cable can definitely impact the whole system.

Ted

 

[Art]

You really need to consider a reduction in caffeine.

2 heads don't adversely impact each other (if properly setup). A failed helm pump or hose, a jammed shift or throttle cable can definitely impact the whole system.

Ted

Why!!???

 

[caltexflanc]

If visibility is the reason for the FB there's not much of a case for them. Most boats seem to be fine to OK on visibility. Look at all the stuff many to most trawlers have on the foredeck to look through or around. If visibility was an issue many would clear the deck. And I don't see that happening.

NT had it right for years .. no stink'in FB. Mark taught me how to talk like that.
OK I've stired the pot enough. Fly bridges are fine as long as the boat's big enough. Something like a GB 36 and similar. Put your saws and claw hammers away ... no FB to remove. I'm still glad someone removed Willy's FB.

Not going to find a better bluewater small boat than the classic 31 Bertram

Also twice the failure points (steering, shifting and throttle controls).

as opposed to having a single point of failure?

 

[Nomad Willy]

Indeed,
The old (1961) Bertram 31 is a gem. But I don't think the "Moppie" (the actial boat that won the Miami offshore race) had a FB. In really rough going at high speed the FB would be stupid. And excluding the visability issue any boat would be a better sea boat w/o a FB.

 

[Art]

My 1973 31' Uni was a sweet baby with big area fly bridge. Have taken film crews onto SF Bay for trailers on films regarding saving sea life. Filmed right off the roomy bridge.

Personally - stable, roomy FB is # 1 in my requirements for any boat much longer that 25'.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Auscan's boat is a motor-sailer Eric...

Peter .. I see.
How odd it is for me not to think of sails and booms on trawlers. Never seen a picture of his boat w a sail up. And I just don't think of sailboats.

I do really like his (Auscan's) comment about visibility at high angles of attack. Didn't think of that but some run this way on a regular basis. But again I usually don't think of trawlers running around w their bow up. But Auscan did even though he's got a sailboat. Good call IMO.

 

[Art]

Indeed,
The old (1961) Bertram 31 is a gem. But I don't think the "Moppie" (the actial boat that won the Miami offshore race) had a FB. In really rough going at high speed the FB would be stupid. And excluding the visability issue any boat would be a better sea boat w/o a FB.

How many times does a "Pleasure Boat" (99.9% of what is discussed on TF) get into really rough seas??? As compared to the nearly 100% of the time watching the weather conditions and playing around in calm seas - On A Flying Bridge!!??

Everyone should get serious and realize that Fly Bridge is a cool, fun, useful addition for "Pleasure Boats". At least that's my humble opinion!!

 

[Nomad Willy]

My 1973 31' Uni was a sweet baby with big area fly bridge. Have taken film crews onto SF Bay for trailers on films regarding saving sea life. Filmed right off the roomy bridge.

Personally - stable, roomy FB is # 1 in my requirements for any boat much longer that 25'.

Interesting bow line tie Art. One of your ceeative moments I'm sure. Haha sometimes we make do w what lines we have. Or what cleats we find. Bull rails .. Love'em.

The Uniflite 31 and 27 are my favorite Uniflites.

Re your 77 Art .. Like I said flybridges are for ice cream boats. Fun boats.

 

[caltexflanc]

Indeed,
The old (1961) Bertram 31 is a gem. But I don't think the "Moppie" (the actial boat that won the Miami offshore race) had a FB. In really rough going at high speed the FB would be stupid. And excluding the visability issue any boat would be a better sea boat w/o a FB.

Again take it up with these guys just for starters...

 

[Nomad Willy]

Interesting bow line tie Art. One of your ceeative moments I'm sure. Haha sometimes we make do w what lines we have. Or what cleats we find. Bull rails .. Love'em.

The Uniflite 31 and 27 are my favorite Uniflites.

Re your 77 Art .. Like I said flybridges are for ice cream boats. Fun boats. And before you say something work boats have the FB for reasons not pretaining to fun.