At 02:20 PM 1/13/05 +0000, you wrote: >Also on the NAR a twin engine boat lost both engines >a couple of hundred feet upwind from the breakwater Without taking the implications of this particular incident to their logical conclusion, I would gently point out that taking care of the engines is THE job one. Understand that I am very sympathetic to the notion of having a second engine. Bob Austin made the comment to me that perhaps my thinking was colored by the fact that I mostly do coastal passagemaking. So that issue is clearly understood; I was thinking specifically about the trips I have made with a single engine and no get home, where we have been hundreds to thousands of miles from help. Perhaps it will be more clear if I repeat roughly what I wrote the other day about the majority of single engine trips that I have made. They almost never have a get home engine. My thinking is very stark, in that I have to make trips like that succeed. No if, ands or buts. Having said all that, perhaps it is time describe not so much what I do, but how I got here. Remember that before I made my first long range trip with a single engine I had to deal with the issue, what if the engine fails. Come to think of it, that issue exists every time. It's just that I have gotten used to it. So, here is the evaluation that every such trip gets. And also, from what does my personal experience stem. I came out of an environment that was closely allied with commercial fishing. Most of those boats have single engines. I have many acquaintances who run such vessels. That gives me lots of notions about just how reliable a single is, which ones are, how to take care of any failures that might occur. I have also worked in an environment that has lots of twin engine installations. As chance would have it, I have had more failures of both engines in boats with twins, more failures of one engine in boats with twins, than failures of single engines in boat with one engine. I cannot overturn these statistics by simple argument. So, how do I evaluate a single engine boat to go where no man has gone before; very carefully! In the 2 cases where we were going out into the vast open, both engines were either new or recently rebuilt. In the one case where the engine had been rebuilt, we had sails, but the route was such that it was VERY unlikely they would be of any use at all. The route was in the doldrums. The engine had to work. We had a sat phone by which we could have gotten technical assistance to fix any failure, as well as a SSB. I don't consider the SSB to be of use for fixing technical problems. It takes too long, the band is likely to shift during the communication and you can't get through exactly when you want, from either end. All of which seriously compromises the use of the SSB.(start another thread on SSB, if you want). I have written some about what should done in terms of spares and tools for single engine boats. I don't think I will elaborate on that here. Let's return to the issue of who you know. I know a lot of single engine, no get home folks. If I have a bias, one could complain that it is from that source. On the other hand, those who argue for the twin or get home engine, are most likely from that crowd. It is hard to escape one's friends and acquaintances. For better or worse, we tend to learn from them, that which is good and also some of the other. I think what it boils down to is that if you can afford the second or wing engine and you can't stomach the nervousness of not having one, then by all means go that route. On the other hand, don't fail to go passage making just because you don't have that second engine. Capt. Mike Maurice Tualatin(Portland), Oregon