NEW YEAR, NEW OCEAN

My apologies for the poor layout of this entry. I have just spent 15 minutes putting in the carriage returns etc, where they are required only to watch it revert back to this! Hope you can make sense of it because I'm not doing it again!

Following a lovely Christmas and New Year with Daryl and his girlfriend Maria, who treated us to the luxury of a Marriott hotel for New Year’s Eve, things in Panama took a definite down-turn. In fact, I am/was so fed up with it all that I am just going to attach one document here that explains most of what happened – I don’t want to think about it anymore - it’s now a problem for Visa – but, in a nutshell, this is what happened, outlined in a letter to Visa and various attachments:

BACKGROUND TO CHARGE ON VISA ACCOUNT
CHARGE FOR £832-11 ON 8TH FEBRUARY 2008, BALBOA, PANAMA

Dear Sirs

Further to a telephone conversation today with Disputes, I asked, due to our poor Skype connection if I could e-mail my details regarding what I consider to be an overcharge on my account, and confirm, in writing, that I am disputing it. The charge has been levied by the ACP – the Panama Canal Authority. I have tried to take up this matter with them but we have reached an impasse and I would ask that you dispute it further on my behalf.

I will try and keep this information as concise as possible.

When you arrange your Panama Canal transit by Visa, you authorise a payment for your transit – in our case $600-00 and they note a buffer of $850-00. They are not allowed to take money from this buffer without contacting me first with their intention and explaining why they feel a fine is necessary.

In my case, they neither contacted me to seek my consent, or kept within the buffer limit. Not only did I not consent to this over-charge, I dispute that it is payable at all.

In brief, when you transit the Panama Canal, a boat our size (a small one!) is assigned a Transit Advisor, these are people who work for the Canal in another capacity but for overtime act as a ‘pilot’ on our boat, instructing us on speed, direction etc. They are trained for this duty. They basically board your boat and take control of it for the day, making all decisions to which we the owner’s and our line-handlers respond.

A bit of background. All sailing vessels have to sign paperwork acknowledging that they can reach a speed of 8 knots. Everyone signs this otherwise you would not be allowed to use the canal. The canal authority knows that most sailing boats can’t engine at 8 knots and are happy if you maintain 6. This means that on a South to North transit (Pacific Ocean to Atlantic Ocean) (as ours was), you generally collect your Transit Advisor at around 0800 hours and make your way to the first three locks, the Miraflores and the Pedro Miguel. Once you are through these locks you then cross the Gatun Lake and, on arriving at the other side, you go through what they call ‘down-locking’ and eventually end up in the Atlantic. Most sailing boats are scheduled to either spend a night in the Lake at the Gatun Locks, or to down-lock sometime between 1600 and 1800 hours.

On the day of our Transit our Advisor informed us that we would be down-locking through the Gatun locks at 1600 hours and so we were happy that we would have plenty of time. This is a very relevant fact.

Having gone through the first set of locks we headed into the Culebra cut and our alternator belt snapped. At the time this happened an explosives barge working for the canal appeared behind us and our Transit Advisor decided that we should tie alongside while my husband fixed our belt. This took 15 minutes and we were back under our own power and ready to cast off. Our Advisor decided that we should stay with the barge until we reached a place called Gamboa as this is where the barge was heading so we should go along with us. OUR TOTAL TIME TO FIX OUR BELT WAS 15 MINUTES. You will see the relevance of this a little later on.

So, we dropped off the explosives barge and continued on our way, making between 6 and 6.5 knots as instructed by our Transit Advisor.

At around 1330 hours, following a call on his radio, I don’t know who from, our Transit Advisor consulted his paperwork and informed us that he had made a mistake and that we had a problem. He had mis-read our lock EXIT time for our lock ENTRY time, and only now did he realise that our lock entry time was 1400 hours – it was obvious to us all that the speed he had asked us to proceed at was not going to get us there in time, he didn’t however ask us to increase our speed. He explained to us that the reason he had made this mistake as that it was highly unusual for a sailing boat to be given a locking down time anywhere before 1600 hours and so he had narrowed in on the 1600 hours time on his transit schedule and not realised that this was our exit time, as this was a perfectly normal ENTRY time. In an e-mail I have had from him in the process of my disputing these charges, he almost admits to this, but obviously is by that time very concerned for his job and his future with the ACP and is now no longer so forthcoming. You have to understand that working for the Panama Canal is a highly prized job – on average they make around $150,000-00 a year where most other Panamanians are making around $400-00 a month. He’s not going to jeopardise that.

We arrived at the lock at 1545 hours (which was right on time for what we thought was going to be a 1600 hours down-lock) and were informed that we would be staying in the lake overnight. This was not unusual. We had already transitted the canal three times previously acting as line handlers on friends’ boats and were pretty au-fait with how the system worked. On two of our previous transits, the boats we were on actually made a slower passage than us and remained in the Lake overnight and then proceeded to down-lock the next day. Neither boat was charged delay – both boats had signed the 8 knot speed clause, neither boat was able to attain that speed.

The following day we down-locked and arrived in the Atlantic.

A few days later we came into Shelter Bay marina for a week in order to prepare for our crossing to Florida. On arrival at the marina I signed into my Visa account to check the balance and make a payment. I was horrified when I saw that the Panama Canal Authority had deducted $1575-00 from my account without my permission. I phoned them immediately and they said they were very sorry they had tried to contact me but as they had no contact details they had gone ahead and made the charge. THIS IS NOT TRUE, when you complete the paperwork you fill out a section of contact details, and for me (as it is with most sailors) I gave my e-mail address – there was no e-mail from the ACP. They then explained to me that as we had been late for our down-locking they had charged delay fees.

This is my situation now:

I DIDN’T AUTHORIZE THE CHARGE TO MY CARD and they failed to contact me in the manner I had indicated on our paperwork.

Even if I had authorized the amount, they were never allowed to take more than $1450-00, as it is they took $1575-00. ($600-00 Transit Fee and $850-00 buffer)

I have been disputing this charge for a week with the Canal Billings office and they have finally told me that they have no intention of refunding my funds.

Had our Transit Advisor not made a mistake in the mis-reading of his paperwork, we would not have this problem now. Naturally he isn’t admitting to this any longer for reasons of job preservation. But, this is the crux of the issue.

You will note in the e-mails that have gone back and forth from myself to payments that initially they were trying to blame ‘engine problems,’ until I pointed out that we DID NOT have engine problems just a broken belt which was fixed in 15 minutes and did not impede our ability.

I think that perhaps the easiest thing to do here is for me to attach the string of e-mails for your information.

I really do apologise if this appears to be a long convoluted explanation and I hope that it makes sense to you.

Firstly, my initial e-mail to the ACP Billing’s Office

SIN 6004022
Dear Sirs
I am writing to clarify the situation regarding charges for my transit on 04 February 2008. I have spoken to Collections who have given me a breakdown of our transit charges, and am astonished to find that we have been penalised for Transit Delay. The transit on our own boat was our fourth. On each previous occasion we arrived at Gatun Lake, or the locks between 1600 and 1730 hours. On the day of our transit, we arrived at the locks at 1530 hours and were informed that we would be staying overnight in the lake.
We logged our transit – in our ship’s Log and on a chart, and there are a number of discrepancies with the information given to me my the Collectors Office.
We picked up our Transit Advisor – Elvir Macmillan - at 0805 hours and went into the first lock at 0905 hours.
We exited Pedro Miguel lock at 1105 hours and proceeded through the Culebra Cut. In the Culebra Cut our alternator belt snapped and we had to stop engine for 15 minutes. At the time we had an explosives barge behind us and our Advisor requested that the barge take us alongside. We did not request their assistance, and had they not been there, would have anchored briefly, changed the belt and continued. However, we were taken alongside at 1205, our belt was replaced in 10 minutes and we were ready to proceed under our own power but our Transit Advisor decided that we ‘might as well stay with the barge’ until we got to Gamboa and cast off there. We cast off at 1245 hours – a total time alongside of 40 minutes.
I would like to make the point here that this is not a complaint about our Advisor, we were very pleased with the professionalism and enjoyed our day with him very much.
We made a good passage through the Lake and were told by our Transit Advisor that we were scheduled for down-locking at the Gatun Locks at 1600 hours. He was very pleased with our progress. However, at approximately 1330 hours our Advisor noted that he had made a mistake regarding our down-locking time and that we were in fact scheduled to down-lock at 1400, EXITING the locks at 1600 hours. He informed us that there must have been a mistake in our scheduled down-lock time as he considered that even at a speed of 8 knots, it would have been impossible to have reached the first of the Gatun Locks by 1400 hours taking into consideration our exit time from the Pedro San Miguel lock, the distance to travel to the first Gatun Lock and a speed of 8 knots
We were all very pleased with our progress and were surprised that when we arrived at the Gatun Locks at 1530 hours, that we were not going to down lock at 1600 hours. The Lock Master confirmed that 1600 hours was the time of or EXIT, once again, something our Advisor felt was a mistake. When this mistake became evident we discussed with our Advisor whether there would be penalties levied against us. He stated that in his opinion we had had a very good transit, making good speed, that he felt our down-lock time had been a scheduling error and that as such there would be no excess charges.
Regardless of this we spent a very pleasant night in the Gatun Lake (as on our previous transits) and proceeded with our down lock the following day.
Could you please investigate the extra charges that have been levied against us and explain to me why it is that we have been charged delay when our scheduled down-lock time was, firstly mis-understood by our Transit Advisor, and secondly, impossible to meet. Can you please explain to me why it is that although we made better time between the locks than two of the previous vessels we transitted on, we have been so heavily penalised, when they were not? I can understand and accept paying a towing fee for the time we spent alongside the barge. The amount of time we were alongside however was not an hour and a half, but 40 minutes.
I would ask that in the light of this information you might review these excess charges. I look forward to your reply.
Best regards
Elizabeth Hanson,S/V Aphrodite
Copy for information: Elvir Macmillan, Transit Advisor
ACP RESPONSE
Good day Ms. Hanson, in reference to your northbound transit on February 4, 2008, our records indicates the following:
1. Your arrived Miraflores locks at 0859 and cleared at 1002
2. Arrived Pedro Miguel locks at 1017 and cleared at 1050.
3. At 1200 we received the report of the engine problem, while passing by Cascada reach and that the tugboat Chame II was already assisting.
4. At 1240 we received the report you were at Gamboa, the engine was fixed and was proceeding with the transit at a maximum speed of 6 knots. We will like to point out the Panama Canal Authority require a minimum full ahead speed of 8 knots.
5. Passing Buoy 25 at 1500.
The times could be a bit different from your log. Our system records the Panama Canal Authority official time, which is the official local time.
On your previous transits you were probably scheduled to remain at Gatun Lake, but for this transit, you were schedule to lock down with N-01 who had as schedule wall time of 1430 and an entering time of about 1500. This schedule was perfectly accomplishable, if not for the engine breakdown experienced during the transit and the maximum full ahead speed of 6 knots. The levy for the transit delay is based of the previous facts.
On the tugboat, she was not schedule for this assistance and the charge is not for the time that you were alongside the tug only, also includes the time the tugboat need to reposition to the point before she got diverted.
Please, if you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Ronaldo E. Achon
Gerente Interino, Sección de Tráfico Marítimo y Arqueo
My response
Estimado Senor Achon Thank you for your quick response to my enquiry regarding extra charges for our transit. I would like to clarify the reason we did not proceed through the Lake to the Gatun Locks at a speed of 8 knots. It was not because of an engine problem. There was no problem with our engine, the problem was that our alternator belt snapped and took 15 minutes to replace and we were very fortunate that the barge was able to assist. Within 15 minutes of the belt breaking, repair had been made we were underway using our own engine and able to proceed unassisted, however, our Transit Advisor decided that we should stay alongside the barge until we reached Gamboa. We took his advice as we didn't realise that there would be such a large charge for this service. Following the repair of our belt, we were still able to make good time but our Advisor told us to maintain a passage speed of between 6 and 6.5 knots as he had read on his schedule that we were to enter the first 'down-lock' at 4.00 p.m. and if we were to proceed faster, we would have to wait. We proceeded at the speed requested by our Advisor. At 1.30 p.m. our Advisor checked his paperwork and realised that he had made a mistake and had read our EXIT time as our ENTRY time. By the time he realised his mistake it was too late for us to make the 1400 schedule. I have contacted our Advisor and he has confirmed this error in an e-mail to me. Please advise if you would like me to make a copy available to you. Of the previous transits I have undertaken, the first one was a sailboat that proceeded at 5.5 knots and arrived late for his 1600 hours down lock. He was re-scheduled to a later time of 1800 hours, when we down-locked and passed through without penalty. What I would like you to understand is that the snapping of our alternator belt, which was fixed in 15 minutes, wasn't the cause for our late arrival. The mistake in our down-locking time was the reason. As I stated in my previous e-mail, I think it is entirely fair that we should pay for the assistance given to us by the barge, but I feel it is deeply unfair that we should be penalised so greatly for a mistake made by our Transit Advisor. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Regards, Liz Hanson
ACP RESPONSE
Dear Ms. Hanson, if you do have an e-mail from the transit advisor, please let me have a copy. Making a mistake reading the lockage time is something, but the transit controller is constantly update the time, on every reporting point, meaning that the advisor did not pay attention to the information provided on the radio neither.
We will have to conduct a further research before we can decide on this issue.
Best regards,
Ronaldo E. Achon
Estimado Senor Achon
My apologies for my delay in replying, I lost the wi-fi signal at the marina last night.
As you will see from Mr Macmillan’s e-mail (our Transit Advisor). When he boarded our boat on the morning of the 4th of February, he was expecting that we would be scheduled for down-locking at the Gatun Locks at 1600 hours or later. We introduced ourselves, he checked his paperwork, saw Gatun Locks 1600 hours and set the speed of our passage accordingly. What he didn’t realise until later was that he had mistaken our EXIT time for our ENTRY time.
At around 1330 hours, and I can’t remember if it was following a call on his radio, he checked his paperwork again and realised the mistake and told us. He had read our exit time as our entry time. By 1330 hours it was too late to make the 1400 hour lock. The plan he had for our passage though did indeed get us there in time for a 1600 hour down lock.
I can see that it was an easy mistake to make and we really don’t wish to cause a problem for Mr Macmillan, he was professional, knowledgeable and a pleasure to spend the day with, but neither can we afford to pay the extra charges for an error that was not our fault.
The following is Mr Macmillan’s e-mail:
Paul and Liz, I am sorry to hear you are been penalized. I will enquire on this matter. Usually it is common to reach Gatun anchorage at around 1530hrs. given the the transit time in the morning and an avg. speed of 8kn. with a locking time assigned at 1600hrs. or later. It was surprising for me to hear from transit lockage at 1400hrs. Now then, I dont believe you are been charge for assitance while replacing your belt...it was for safety reasons and to remain secure to the pusher boat was to clear safely that area while awaiting for your engine to cool down. There was no mistake made in terms of lockage time it is just that it was assigned two hours ahead of regular schedules for handlines cruising at avg. 8kn. and commencing transit at 0800hrs. As I said will check with our office on this matter. I dont have the final word on this and my expertise is out in the field to assure the customer a safe transit. This we accomplished.Keep me posted. All the best, E.MacMillan.
I would respectfully request that in the light of the above, you are able to review the situation.
Best regardsLiz HansonS/V Aphrodite
ACP RESPONSE
Good day Ms. Hanson, we understand you were at Gamboa at 1240. You stated that the advisor realized his mistake at 1330. Where was the boat at that time (50 minutes after passing Gamboa)? The distance between Gamboa and Gatun is 21 Nautical Miles, running at 8 Knots that should take about 2.6 hours.
Your lock down time was not 1400, the wall time for the vessel you were locking down with was 1430 and entering the chamber at about 1500. If at 1330 he realized his mistake, why he did not speedup to get to Gatun at 1500?
We will contact Mr. Macmillan for more details.
Regards,
Ronaldo E. Achon
Gerente Interino, Sección de Tráfico Marítimo y Arqueo
MY RESPONSE
Estimado Senor Achon Thank you for your response. I really don't know the answer to your questions, we just followed Mr Macmillan's advice. I am sure that when you contact him he will be able to resolve the matter for us. I will await your reply. Best regards, Liz Hanson
ACP RESPONSE
Estimada Sra. Hanson, we already spoke with Mr. Macmillan. With the information provided by him, we believe, that the charges are valid.
Regards,
Ronaldo E. Achon
I really don’t believe that these charges are valid. As per all transit’s through the canal, we followed the advice of our Transit Advisor, he got it wrong and now we are being penalised.
I’m not sure how you/we proceed in such a matter. As I have stated all along, I am obviously willing to pay for our transit, and was willing to pay for the tow, but am now re-considering that.
Would please let me know what possible re-course we may have and if we can stop this charge.
My apologies for the length of this e-mail, I wasn’t quite sure of any other way of explaining it!
There is one other thing, early in January we had a different problem with the ACP and I am wondering if one has reflected on the other. My husband say’s I am being neurotic!!! But I wonder?
The details are best explained in the following, which is a copy of an e-mail and one or our witness statements
Dear Elvir
Many thanks for your continued offer of support. I have to say I feel so upset as this is the second problem we have had with the ACP. I've attached a document that explains what happened to us in January when an ACP tug boat pulled up our anchor on the 2nd of January, when we were ashore. We have a number of statement's all of which have been submitted to a Mr Hogan. What the statement doesn't explain is that the buoy they pulled up had lots of little anchor symbols on it and the name of our boat, but this didn't stop them. As a result we had a meeting with the ACP with Rene Horos and Rodolfo Hogan. They promised to investigate and accepted responsibility for damage. After six weeks and numerous e-mails, including photographs of the damage, photographs of the guy who pulled up our anchor (a Senor Quintero) photographs of our anchor buoy, and promises that an inquiry would take place and that our damage would be fixed, we have heard nothing. Just over a week ago, having submitted repair costs of approximately $1,500-00 I still heard nothing and so set a deadline for a response. What we have to do is haul-out our boat so that we can remove our windvane and take it to a workshop where a jointing pin can be removed by a hydraulic press so that the gears can be re-meshed. Without this work we have no windvane and it is rather vital to us so this is something else it would seem we are going to have to find money to fix. Anyway, the response didn't happen and so I said that I would write to the Chairman of ACP. Then we get fined for our Canal Transit!!?? I am so at a loss as to what to think. If there is anything you can do on our behalf, then obviously we would be very grateful, but I appreciate your position and know it can't be easy. I can make copies of all statements and photos to you, should you think it would be of any use, I expect not. I am sorry that this has turned into a saga and even more sorry that with both these incidents our memories of Panama will not be happy ones. Thanks again and best regards, Liz and PaulWITNESS STATEMENT
INCIDENT WITH ACP SECURITY AND SAILING VESSEL APHRODITE IN LA PLAYITA ANCHORAGE, 2ND JANUARY 2008 STATEMENT FROM CAPTAIN DAVID JANSSENS/V SUCRE I was in my cockpit on the afternoon of the 2nd of January 2008 when I heard a lot of shouting from a boat nearby. The boat was Liberty Call, and when I looked I noted that he was shouting at an SCP Security vessel that was attempting to hook the yellow anchor buoy that belonged to the sailing boat Aphrodite. The Captain of Liberty Call was waving his arms and shouting 'No, no.' The ACP guys looked across at Liberty Call and then proceeded to pull up the yellow anchor buoy. As soon as the anchor buoy had been pulled up Aphrodite started to drift back very rapidly as it was a very windy day. The man on the ACP boat realised what he had done and threw the anchor buoy overboard, back into the water. In the meantime I could see that Aphrodite was going to hit Liberty Call and I therefore jumped in my dinghy to go and help.
A number of other people from other boats had also seen what had happened and were also in their dinghy's rushing to help. Unfortunately Aphrodite struck Liberty Call and then the wind vane steering on Aphrodite became entangled around the bow pulpit and anchor chain on Liberty Call. I was trying to unwrap the chain from around the wind vane as the anchorage was very 'choppy' that due due to the high winds, and every time the boats rolled the strain of the anchor chain around the wind vane steering was pulling the mechanism apart. At this point I injured my arm. The damaged looked very bad and I didn't think it would be possible to fix the wind vane. The impact also smashed the stern light on Aphrodite. I also noticed that the stainless steel pulpit on Liberty Call was damaged. We managed to free Aphrodite from Liberty Call and then a number of epople boarded Aphrodite and started the engine in order to re-anchor the boat. Davaljanssen@hotmail.com
Back to my letter to Visa
I look forward to receiving your thoughts and advice on the matter of these charges. Can you withdraw the payment while it is in dispute? I’ve always found that he who has the money has the power!!
For information, it is almost impossible to get a phone call out of here and my only means of communication is e-mail. Could you therefore please respond to me by e-mail? Many thanks for your time. I look forward to receiving your advice.
Best regards
Elizabeth Hanson
So, that sums up the remainder of our time in Panama.
It was therefore with a mixture of relief tinged with much sadness that we sailed out of Shelter Bay marina in Colon on the 19th of February and headed east for the beautiful islands of San Blas. Relief, to be moving on from Panama, but deep sadness to be leaving our very good friend and sailing ‘buddy’ for the last 10 months, Daryl, behind. This is where our roads part – ours to cross the Caribbean and head back ultimately to Europe, his to voyage out across the Pacific Ocean to French Polynesia, Hawaii and eventually back to his home town of San Francisco. It’s been great matey, lifelong memories, we’ll miss you very much and look forward to seeing you again somewhere. Bon voyage xx
AND SO, CARIBBEAN CRUISING

Our first passage on leaving Colon was a windward bash, in 20 knots in company with David and his friends on ‘Bella’, to the historical town of Portobelo on the ‘Spanish Main.’ The bay of Portobelo was discovered by Christopher Columbus on 2nd November 1502, and in 1586 Portobelo was chosen as the Caribbean transhipment centre because of its magnificent harbour and convenient location. It soon became one of the most important sites for transferring South and Central American riches. From Portobelo tons of gold and silver flowed to the commercial capital of the Spanish empire – Seville. From 1574 to 1702, 45 fleets of galleons were sent forth, none of which carried less than thirty million pesos of riches. The town was highly fortified and much of the fortification still stands today, including the ‘guns of Portobelo’ which are still in their emplacements. The wealth that arrived in Portobelo was a strong draw for pirates, the like of Henry Morgan, who worked the Spanish Main and with an assault troop of 460 men, he sacked the town.

A fascinating place and a fabulous harbour, totally sheltered, we dropped our anchor ‘under the guns of Portobelo’ – literally – next to our friends on Bella who had arrived several hours before us (53 foot power boat!!). The following day we were alerted to problems on board Bella, she was making water and the source of the leak couldn’t be found. A few hours later the problem was contained although the source was still a mystery. Paul and I headed ashore to explore this historic town. At the dinghy landing we met an old American gentleman named Dick who is an ex-cruiser and now allows other cruisers to moor their dinghies at the dock on his waterside property. Dick’s a very interesting man, and along with his wife Pat, has researched and written about much of the history of the area. On realising that we were English and that Paul has a fascination concerning naval history, he dug deep into his sea chest and pulled out original silver pieces of eight and gold dubloons!

The next morning we hauled anchor and continued our windward bash towards the island of Isla Grande, our first Caribbean island. We pulled close in to shore and anchored in 9 feet of water!! A bizarre feeling. Having cruised the Pacific for the last year where we had to make allowances for rise and fall of tide, we had rarely anchored in anything under 30 feet. Now in the Caribbean, the most tide we will encounter is likely to be a foot or less – the advantage of this is that we are much closer to the shore and once we were happy that our anchor was set, we dived in and swam through the shallow, warm, clear turquoise water to the white palm-fringed beach – heaven. Unfortunately the anchorage turned a little rolly and so the next day we bashed on, once again, towards the San Blas archipelago. San Blas comprises 340 coral islands and is very unique. They are home to the indigenous Kuna Indians who have best preserved their culture and traditions out of all the tribes in the Americas. The area is also home to one of the most untouched stretches of virgin rainforest. Each of the inhabited islands has a strict hierarchy of tribal leaders, each village having three ‘Sahilas’ or village chiefs. The Kuna nation is then ruled by three Caciques or high chiefs. When arriving in an anchorage at an inhabited island, it is not unusual to be invited ashore to meet the village chiefs and part with some dollars! This has yet to happen to us! And so after beating up and around Punta San Blas, we arrived at our first San Blas island – Chichimi. The island is surrounded by reef and therefore, even on the windward side where we anchored, the water is calm. The sound of the waves crashing on the outer reef at night is a little disconcerting however, but the entry through the reef into the lagoon was pretty easy and once inside we dropped our anchor in crystal clear water and were immediately approached by a group of Kuna women in their dug-out canoe, selling Mola’s. These are beautiful appliqué squares, varying in size, some sewn into shirts or blouses, others that make gorgeous cushion covers and wall hangings. They are very intricate and are made by sewing and cutting different layers of colourful cloth. Every mola is different and they usually depict forms of bird, animal or marine life. Molas are Panama’s most famous handicraft, are very beautiful and very difficult not to buy – now I just have to learn to say ‘no gracias’ – a boat this size can only have so many cushions! Tomorrow we head out for the East Lemon Cays where we are hoping to join our friends Kurt and Agatha on Maverick, a couple we first sailed with in Mexico over a year ago. We will then cruise down through the archipelago and then have a 200 mile windward bash to Cartagena in Colombia before heading north west towards Cuba, some time towards the end of March. A cruising boat could easily spend a year in the San Blas alone, unfortunately our schedule only allows for 2 to 3 weeks – we will have to come back on a future cruise!?