PDA

View Full Version : Missing Yacht/MissingThread


Effluent Man
21st May 2014, 19:01
Anyone know where it went and why?

500N
21st May 2014, 19:03
Yes, I'd like to know as well, it wasn't controversial - or was it ?

Effluent Man
21st May 2014, 19:06
If it was it went right over my head.Several posts deleted from the Military Aircrew thread in the last hour or so.

airship
21st May 2014, 19:42
As the BBC continues to report here (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27497974) and the USCG being "persuaded to resume" their original very short search which was abandonned after 48H.

Perhaps (hopefully) something to do with the original photo/s of this stricken sailboat taken from aboard the "container-ship", but which did not stop or render assistance...?! Of course even the most-modern and huge "container-ships" can stop very rapidly when required, and are even required to do exactly that, so as to be able to render assistance to all those on the high seas. I expect that this particular container-ship, their operators and/or owners preferred that their ship's "Master" mostly ignored any/all "debris" and continue "full-ahead at max. economical speed onto their next port, maintaining their announced schedule/s".

However, perhaps not as bad as simply throwing "over-board" illegal immigrants caught aboard by similar vessels...?! :uhoh:

Whoever took the original photo/s of what might have been the remnants of the "Cheeki Rafiki", but especially the Master of said ""container-ship" should be identified, questioned and/or arrested "immediately on arrival" at their next port...WTF?!

There is simply no adequate or reasonable excuse "for not stopping to render assistance" IMHO...?! All seafarers should take note of this - amateurs should do their best to keep a sharp lookout even when short-handed. Professional/commercial seafarers should properly respect the rules, and those who prefer to ignore them should be brought before the courts, even just for man-slaughter. Preferable also "giving up" their employers in such cases...?! :mad:

500N
21st May 2014, 19:47
AIRSHIP

It would be interesting to know what the USCG's instructions were to the vessel in question - I am sure they were in touch with them.

Like the civvy ship asked to divert and search for MH370 at the very beginning SW of Perth, which they did for a few days.

I agree and am surprised they didn't make any effort to stop and see if anyone was alive inside. I didn't expect them to search for a raft but once they found the capsized hull, then I would have thought the next action was obvious, even if it is hard.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st May 2014, 20:00
Exactly how do you propose to get from the deck of a container ship to the top of a mainly submerged yacht safely?
Remember you have large waves moving up and down the side of the ship.
They can chuck a liferaft/lifeboat off, but that's about it.
http://www.seapixonline.com/NSImages2/Regina%20Maersk,%201996%20%281%29%20.jpg

Now compare the sea and boat conditions from Tony Bullimore's rescue and photos from the Maersk Kure
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/photo/vendee96.gif

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/19/article-2632543-1DFEB32000000578-302_634x380.jpg

500N
21st May 2014, 20:05
Climb down the anchor chain :p ;)

500N
21st May 2014, 20:13
Stern of ship, closest to water, has access points in hull.

Look, I know it is not normal and is hard but I tend to think "can do" not "can't" !


I always took you as a "Can do" person as opposed to a "Can't" !

airship
21st May 2014, 20:29
Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: Exactly how do you propose to get from the deck of a container ship to the top of a mainly submerged yacht safely?

You can be quite (or just are) completely ignorant when you choose to be. In addition to the lifeboat/s carried aboard most container vessels, they will also normally be equipped with a small "rescue boat". Sort of looks like a Zodiac inflatable boat with an outboard-motor. On passenger vessels, such an independent "rescue-boat" would be used to gather or regroup liferafts from the stricken vessel, towing them away from immediate danger from the stricken vessel etc.

I've read a lot of bollux about modern shipping and irrespect for their fellow seafarers. Just because you're a "large vessel" does not in any way dispense or excuse you as the Master or operator/owner from respecting the regulations and rules. "Full-stop"! Then instigate "Man-overboard procedures...?!"

These big "container-ships", their crews, owners/operators who see their vessels and services as operating "on rails" respecting strict time-tables etc. need a very serious "wake-up" call, even one involving seriously-long prison sentences for some involved.

Even the normal land-based trains most of us use are not always "on-time". And their drivers or owner/operators don't stop yer average train-driver for stopping or being delayed in an emergency when necessary...?! But for some implausible reason, floating trains operating on the high-seas are not so constrained.

There are people who should be brought before a court (not just airship's) here... :ugh:

PS. If the SAR peeps just give up all hope for you after 48H, what's the point of spending all the additional cash on liferafts and supplementary equipment offered by modern liferaft manufacturers, which should allow you at least 3-7 days or more survival in their liferafts under most circumstances? Is that just a "marketing or sales" ploy to convince the gullible even in the face of SAR folks "giving up" after 48H...?!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st May 2014, 20:59
You may be forgetting the sea state. If you won't take my word for it, try the USCG
due to the sea state the Maersk vessel didn’t investigate the capsized boat. A spokesman for the US Coast Guard commented on the actions of the ship explaining that the container vessel doesn’t have the maneuverability and capability to be involved in the rescue operations.

500N
21st May 2014, 21:03
PS. If the SAR peeps just give up all hope for you after 48H, what's the point of spending all the additional cash on liferafts and supplementary equipment offered by modern liferaft manufacturers, which should allow you at least 3-7 days or more survival in their liferafts under most circumstances? Is that just a "marketing or sales" ploy to convince the gullible even in the face of SAR folks "giving up" after 48H...?!


No, not in Australia's case, (unless you are an Asylum seeker ;))

As that French sailor found out, he spent a few days in one until found.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st May 2014, 21:24
To make the point technically, the link below is to the USCG manual for launching and recovering cutter boats. The highest seas permitted for launching are 8 feet (page 1-22), and these guys are the professionals. The seas at the time were reported as 20 feet. Even in the lee of the container ship, trying to launch a RIB is in those conditions is basically just suicide. The waves have 2.5 squared = over six times the energy of the USCG's limits. Furthermore, the USCG recommends a launch speed of 4 kts. I very much doubt the skipper of the Maersk would have steerage at that speed in that sea state.
Put it another way, even if it could be launched, the waves would be moving the cutter/RIB up and down the side of the ship at about 3 vertical feet per second average, six feet per second max. Try and picture yourself in a RIB in a howling wind next to a huge container ship, moving up 20 feet and down 20 feet every 15 seconds.

http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/3000-3999/CIM_3120_6.pdf

500N
21st May 2014, 21:32
Fox 3

OK, Fair call.

I've launched in worse than 8 Feet from the side of a Fast Patrol boat - 6 or 8 loaded Zodiacs - and it is hairy :rolleyes:

And that was on the leeward side :O


In fact it can be effing scary !!!

airship
21st May 2014, 21:38
Fox3WheresMyBanana, just more hogwash from the authorities: due to the sea state the Maersk vessel didn’t investigate the capsized boat. A spokesman for the US Coast Guard commented on the actions of the ship explaining that the container vessel doesn’t have the maneuverability and capability to be involved in the rescue operations.

Or worse, someone in the USCG is also now explaining the decision by the Master of the Maersk container-ship not to stop and render assistance as being completely "normal" under the conditions (but not so bad that someone could take a very clear photo of the remnants of a sailing yacht from aboard the "container-ship"...?! Friends and maerates in high-places maybe...?! :ugh:

The simple and innocent question is: "Have any illegal immigrants simply ever been thrown over-board into the sea from any Maersk ship operating anywhere worldwide?" Because it has happenned in the past with other shipping lines etc., which cannot be ignored or ever forgotten.

But maybe that is why Maersk today believe that they can also ignore basic rules and regulation and their responsibility to other seafarers (because they're "not one of the above mentionned")? For the sake of losing a few hours on their tight schedule (and less profits on their ops), they prefer to just keep cruisin' (with USCG SAR approval)...?! :}

Sop_Monkey
21st May 2014, 21:39
I agree that ship should have tried to do something more than what appears to have been the case here. More than just a few photos! They are now talking about using commercial ships in the area conduct a search as well as other ships and A/C. Yet there was a ship, right there, then carried on FFS!! I don't know how that Captain can sleep at night. To me that's a hanging offence, period. If it was one of his family members on board that yacht, he would have turned around and stopped, believe me. And they have the front to call themselves Captains. Give me a break FFS!


Ever heard the term "stay on station" or words to that effect? Commercial pressure? I think so.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st May 2014, 21:40
500N - I'm sorry I wasn't able to make my point clearer earlier. And you guys were trained and experienced. Now put some ordinary container ship guy in conditions with six times more energy than a roughy-toughy military type calls "effing scary"

Others - please read post 12. 500N is convinced and unlike the rest of us he's tried it. Ships are now able to look as the weather has moderated. The Maersk would have had to hang around for three days for these more acceptable conditions.
Also, take a look at the Rafiki hull (95+% submerged)compared with Tony Bullimore's (about 10% submerged) - how big an air pocket do you think there is in the latter?

500N
21st May 2014, 21:47
Fox

I still think they shouldn't have carried on regardless but understand
the problem with launching etc in those sea states.

I didn't realize they were in 20 foot waves, the photos didn't indicate that.

BTW, it's not me who got scared as I like that type of thing but saw some white knuckles in my time
but it is a dangerous activity, even for "trained" people.

I am normally too sea sick to be scared :rolleyes: :O

Ancient Mariner
21st May 2014, 21:50
F3WMB, if you can't launch a MOB in those conditions, how would they fare in a lifeboat? Better stay away from those cruise liners.
Per

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st May 2014, 21:55
I would think the USCG decided the following.
If they are in the water after this length of time, they're dead.
Even if there is an air pocket in that hull and they're in it, it's a very small one, so they're all mostly immersed in the water underneath, so they're dead.
If they're in a liferaft, we can't find it.

If I was alive in the liferaft with 2 PLBs, I'd have switched them to broadcast intermittently to make the signal last 2 weeks (they are reported as manuals - I intended to use mine for 5 minutes every 2 hours after the first 12).

I am open to any other plausible scenario......

The lifeboats for these conditions are often freefall. They are designed with hard shells and are chucked off the back. They expect to be immersed briefly and are self-righting, and you don't have to recover them.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Freefall_lifeboat.JPG/220px-Freefall_lifeboat.JPG

p.s. don't talk to me about cruise liners - I nearly got run down by one in broad daylight in the Old Bahama Channel. The Captain?...Italian! I'll bet that surprises you.

500N
21st May 2014, 22:03
"If I was alive in the liferaft with 2 PLBs, I'd have switched them to broadcast intermittently to make the signal last 2 weeks (they are reported as manuals - I intended to use mine for 5 minutes every 2 hours after the first 12)."


I'd switch it off after the first 6 - which should ensure they heard it, then switch it on every hour for 5 minutes and keep it like clockwork.

You can drift a hell of a long way in two hours !

airship
21st May 2014, 22:05
Fox3WheresMyBanana. The photo of the missing yacht supposedly the remnants of the S/Y Cheeki Rafiki and taken from aboard the container-ship do not reflect such bad sea-state conditions "at the time". The only ones bleating on about "theoretical" sea-state conditions are you and perhaps also the USCG (both of whom were not "on-site" nor available to comment on actual sea-state at the time. Why "no comment" so far from the Master or owners of the Maersk vessel involved so far...?!

I regularly and always safely "picked up / delivered" my boss, a 70 year-old man from his 55m motor yacht when "lying-off atolls to be visited" in French Polynesia, often subject to severe rolling from ocean swells (3-4m "up and down" movement within about 3-5 seconds time period would be about right), at the helm of a small RIB. Of course, all the really "big ship" types can only simply theorise, never having actually exprienced for themselves, whether or not whatever "rescue boat" operations are feasable. Partly why "big ship" types are invariably always subjected to bringing aboard a "pilot", even for quite straight-forward approaches to many ports (and don't forget the tugs)...?! ;)

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st May 2014, 22:07
I'm not sure there's an optimum. Either of our method would achieve the aim of ensuring a longer duration, and providing the rescue centre with some drift info. The signal error is 2-3 miles. Depends if your raft has seawater pockets and what you think your chances of rescue are.

Airship - as someone pointed out on the deleted thread, we only have a still image in the wave shadow of the ship. I am only too happy to be considered to have judgement as poor as the USCG - flattered would be more accurate.

airship
21st May 2014, 22:18
So why do you (and the USCG) apparently use that photo to decide to "give up the search" after 48H, before the UK and others somehow persuaded them to re-engage...?! That was my (and others') original point in posting here...?! :ugh:

PS. What "wave shadow" do you speak about? Never heard of such "wake shadow". The photo I saw of the remnants of the sailing vessel were taken when these remnants were "along-side and within a few metres" of the ship from which the photo was taken. I hope for Maresk' sake that the original photo was taken in ignorance by say, the ship's cook. And only made known to the watch-keeper or Master sometime afterwards - yeah, really, whatever next...?!

PPS. Surely, if there was and exists a "wake shadow", then perhpas they could have used that effect to launch the rescue boat after retracing their route 180° and then coming back upto where the remnants lay...?!

Seldomfitforpurpose
21st May 2014, 22:26
So why do you (and the USCG) apparently use that photo to decide to "give up the search" after 48H, before the UK and others somehow persuaded them to re-engage...?! That was my (and others') original point in posting here...?! :ugh:

Perhaps if you listed your SAR quals etc it would make the debate a little smoother.........

500N
21st May 2014, 22:28
Airship

"PS. What "wave shadow" do you speak about? Never heard of such "wake shadow"."

Wave shadow as in the leeward side of a boat / ship.

Leeward as in the side AWAY from the prevailing wind / sea state - as in DOWNWIND
- as opposed to the windward (Upwind) side.

It makes one hell of a difference when you have 8 - 12 foot waves and a howling wind
(as in gale force) and you are trying to launch a boat (rubber ducky) over the side of a ship.

Have you spent much time on boats or at sea ????

airship
21st May 2014, 22:32
Certainly, but only after you list your own first...?!

Do you usually get your way by telling people to simply "shut-up". It certainly comes across that way...?! It's why I like airline pilots - they've learned something about CRM etc. over the past few decades. :ok:

PS. 500N, if someone wanted to say "leeward", they would have used that term instead of "shadow wake"...?! You're just repeating bullshite.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st May 2014, 22:33
The USCG have publicly backed the actions of the skipper of the Maersk Kure. The UK Coastguard have publicly backed the USCG in stopping the search. What little I know (Yachtmaster, military offshore expedition leader, singlehanded transatlantic, physics degree including an oceanography course, RAF sea survival courses) leaves me in complete agreement with all of them.
The judgement of the professionals has been over-ridden by the political masters - well, we live in a democracy, and they have clearly responded to public pressure, so be it. But, and this is my only beef really, I think that the money now being spent is being wasted, and that it won't be replaced by the politicians come the next financial year. Consequently, there won't be the money available to spend on better chances of rescue next year.

Perhaps I should also add that, but for a friend of mine changing his plans, I would currently have been on a yacht transiting from Antigua to Europe. If it was me out there I would be doing what the other yachts are doing and going to help search, but I would still have expected the Maersk's skipper to drive past given the conditions and what he observed.

500N
21st May 2014, 22:36
Fox3

"What little I know (Yachtmaster, military offshore expedition leader, singlehanded transatlantic,
physics degree including an oceanography course)"

You forgot the two most important one's,
banana receiver and FJ Pilot (God ? :O)

;) :p

Fox3WheresMyBanana
21st May 2014, 22:46
Here's me, trying to set an FJ pilot world duration record for modesty of 0.234 seconds and you go and spoil it!;)

Seldomfitforpurpose
21st May 2014, 22:46
Certainly, but only after you list your own first...?!


Never a SAR Boy but dabbled a bit during my SH crewman days so have a bit of an understanding. The USCG however have been at it properly for quite a while and the one thing my military time taught me is the Experts didn't become Experts by accident......

Nw your turn chap :ok:

airship
21st May 2014, 22:47
Well. I understand that I'll be proved wrong when after a more substantial effort, none of the 4 persons aboard the Cheeki Rafiki are recovered, dead or alive aboard a liferaft.

And you'll all be proved right...?! Does that satisfy you (500N and Fox3WheresMyBanana)?

I think that's what they call 'check' and 'mate', mateys...?! Bonne nuit à vous! Et une pensée pour l'équipage du Cheeki Rafiki... :ok:

500N
21st May 2014, 22:49
Airship

:ok:

I hope they find them, alive first and if not, then dead.

Seldomfitforpurpose
21st May 2014, 22:59
! Bonne nuit à vous! Et une pensée pour l'équipage du Cheeki Rafiki... :ok:

No don't go, it's just getting interesting :ok:

Mr Chips
21st May 2014, 23:00
Airship, you are setting yourself up as knowing more than the USCG, UK Coastguard and frankly everyone else involved, and yet criticising other posters.
How is it that you know more about the sea state than everyone else? (I'm guessing the yacht didn't go down due to good weather)

Also, your hatred of Maersk is showing a teeny bit. Did a Maersk man do something naughty to you once?

Lonewolf_50
21st May 2014, 23:02
airship, the first JB thread on this topic got deleted, perhaps by the originator, perhaps by the mods. It included some wind ups.

Your wind up act is getting tiresome.
The arguments from ignorance do not impress.

Please take the time to read through the Missing Yacht thread on the Military Aircrew forum. There is some good discussion there from a variety of perspectives, to include some detailed points beyond the concise and spot on technical points Fox3 has already provided to you.

500N
21st May 2014, 23:05
airship

Don't go.

I don't mind having a good discussion on a subject and don't mind if someone disagrees with me
and pretty sure Fox3 is the same.

But you have to at least back up your views with experience and examples as Fox3 and I have done.

Unless you have been in SeaState "awful", it's hard for people to fathom
what the hell it is like coming off the top of a 15 foot wave in a rubber ducky
or trying to maneuver around without tipping over etc etc.

So lay it on the line and tell us why you think what you think.


BTW - I do tend to agree that the sea state in the photo of the yacht
is not as bad as people have been saying, regardless of the leeward
or windward side !

Andy_P
21st May 2014, 23:16
No offence, but photos of seas dont really give away sea state either. I would rely on the word of the container ship staff.

As for the ship not stopping to provide assistance. If there was no visible sign of life, I probably would have made the same decision. To recover someone from and upturned hull would require specialised training and to risk life attempting to do so just does not make sense. I say this as both a sailor and someone who has worked in marine rescue.

cornish-stormrider
22nd May 2014, 00:19
the only option the US had, IF the Maersk were either able to stay on station or get a transmitter (which they probably don't have) onto the wreck of the hull.... but lets say the USCG actually HAS a fix on the hull location - what could they actually do.....?

1. send boat
2. send boat with Helo.
3. air drop PJ 's into forking big seas and have them survive till they get recovered.

so they airdrop the PJ's who enter the hll and find - either bodies or nothing. there is next to no chance of the hull in that state supporting life. hence thats why they took to the raft, you have four fit, trained and motivated individuals in a raft in sea state scary - how long will they last??

best and worse cases, all four in - no injuries, in suits with grab bags.
worse case - one in and with a second body who also had a PLB, first one is injured and raft is damaged.

the ocean is big, it is cruel and unreleting. As much as I hope and pray they will find them I sadly fear this will be another bad day.

oh, and fwiw I am limited in experience in being a coastal sailor, but force 10 is force 10 and it scared the crap out of me..

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd May 2014, 00:24
I have never met an ocean yachtsman sailing from the Caribbean on a delivery with an immersion suit, or Europe for that matter. I would be surprised if they had them.

I recall seeing the windspeed hit 53 kts in a 34'yacht in the the North Sea. The one less experienced member of the crew came on deck and squeaked "It's Force Ten!!"
At the helm, the skipper, who had skippered in the Southern Ocean in the Whitbread Race, calmly said "It's only gusting Force Ten"
Very effective; the lad calmed down immediately.

rh200
22nd May 2014, 00:52
The judgement of the professionals has been over-ridden by the political masters - well, we live in a democracy, and they have clearly responded to public pressure, so be it.

The professionals need to make judgments along particular lines for practical and political purposes. They don't know if they are dead or alive, they have come to the conclusion their dead from the evidence they have, they are most likely right.

The politicians need to make decisions as well, for political and practical reasons, the weightings between the two groups are not the same.

The only thing which is the same is in both groups, is the conclusion that the sailors are dead may be wrong. This is where the weightings and the consequences of the decision come in if that is ever found out to be true.

cornish-stormrider
22nd May 2014, 00:54
touche - and it wasnt gusting 10 - it was gusting 11......
and this is when I used to surf so I was comfortable in big seas - whats that line......

ah,
"d'you know what triple overhead means?"
that same winter I had surfed out of lossiemouth East beach and we paddled out from the blackballed harbour - the waves were breaking green over the top of the outer wall. (at low water too, and it was almost sucking dry...) So i am a little experienced in bad weather and sea state.

but it's not southern ocean either - i certainly aint mad enough for there.

bottom line - did i feel safe at force 10 on a 30 footer, not really. did i think i was going to die, no. we went to stormjib and held position as best we could while enduring a right kicking. once it abated we went back to racing.

500N
22nd May 2014, 00:56
Fox3

A steady voice and hand on shoulder can do wonders for
people at certain times.

And the ability to make the right decisions at the right times
under testing circumstances is also a good trait to have.

As you would well know.


Re immersion suits - not sure what we wore - more like rubber waterproof suits but they make doing things
very hard indeed in a boat - and all I was doing was sitting on the edge of it holding the tiller !!!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd May 2014, 01:27
Seems like the correct move. We hove-to when it hit 55kts, got some rest, then started racing again when it dropped to 48kts max...and we won our class and came second overall to a 53 footer.

The skipper had seen F12 / 40 ft waves regularly before. Very instructional to be with him.

I was close to a waterspout as it formed mid-Atlantic, singlehanded. It's a bit worrying when the windspeed reads 99kts because your display only has 2 digits. It stayed that way for about 10 minutes. Still, one is rather busy,which turns out to be handy, and I'm still here, so no harm done. I managed to grab a few photos.

http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag156/RickXI/transat067Tornado_zps9032fd95smaller_zpsb5d5e81b.jpg
The waterspout formed roughly centre shot, you can see the funnel cloud forming. I was very busy for the next 15 minutes.

http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag156/RickXI/bc93c44c-9d1c-4a98-bd6f-c396552a3421_zps56b87e1f.jpg
The waves picked up from about 2 feet to 12 feet+ very fast. The thing that struck me, literally,was that the rain was hitting so hard it was bouncing back up. Visibility about 40 foot.

http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag156/RickXI/f5af996d-4f7e-47c6-90d6-8295319b74f7_zpsf3527d81.jpg
After a bit, partly to relieve the stress, I adopted the English SOP and made a cup of tea. Remarkable how a ritual calms you down. By no coincidence at all, it is 4pm.;)

http://i1303.photobucket.com/albums/ag156/RickXI/d030d23b-e166-4440-a1e4-a65878e86ea2_zpsd3efca70.jpg
Eventually there was a horizon with a bit of blue beyond. Only time I've ever seen both the sea and sky jet black.

As a final footnote,my 30 foot Catamaran had been designed for offshore shorthanded sailing, the prototype won the RB&I by miles, I had both Jimmy Cornell and Robin Knox-Johnson tell me it was a good choice of boat, and by chance my pre-purchase survey was done by the same guy who did Ellen MacArthur's surveys. This is immensely comforting at times like these, and well worth the time and money to get.

500N
22nd May 2014, 01:41
Fox3

Great photos :ok:

I used to have a smoke in the back of the Zodiac which was always entertaining !

Trying to light it was the hardest, then trying to steer at the same time
as keep the waves and water from soaking you.

And thirdly, making sure any hot "ash" didn't fall onto the petrol cans
or rubber fuel bladders :rolleyes:

A good smoke when you are cold always helps :ok:

I also took along a flask of coffee and from memory the Army provided
flasks of soup or something.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd May 2014, 01:46
I remember on the Fastnet, '91 I think, both our main helmsmen were at times clearly steering with the sole aim of not getting their smokes wet - sod the course or the boats we were racing!

500N
22nd May 2014, 04:49
Wet

Which navy were you in ?

Andy_P
22nd May 2014, 05:32
Speaking of photo's and sea state, guess the wave height here:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pjAhFV17G5o/TzBN4o1QZZI/AAAAAAAAAhM/A1r35yrevgA/s640/2012-02-06.jpg

That was the morning after a force 11 storm, strongest conditions I have ever sailed in.

500N
22nd May 2014, 05:51
25 to 30 feet from the crest of a wave to the bottom of the trough ?

John Hill
22nd May 2014, 05:59
I have been on this ferry a few times, does that count?

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5319/14242057814_e111020fbb.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk1Ld820uNg

Andy_P
22nd May 2014, 07:05
25 to 30 feet from the crest of a wave to the bottom of the trough ?

About 30 feet, maybe just over. The ship had a hull speed of 4knots, we were surfing down the waves pulling about 12-15knots and even managed to crack 18 at one stage!

500N
22nd May 2014, 07:09
Andy

That would have been an interesting ride :O

The photo is very deceptive because of the angle of the ship.

Akrotiri71
22nd May 2014, 09:09
As a person who knows the square root of sod all about sailing, and discussing this story in the pub last night.

Was the vessel was sufficiently crewed for such a journey? It appears to me that it would require more people to sail her, (as in the pictures you see of her in racing mode), with all the rigging/sails etc to be handled. Members of the crew would need sleep/eat/rest at some point. Or would four people have been adequate?

John Hill
22nd May 2014, 10:18
The ship had a hull speed of 4knots,

Eh what? Thats about the hull speed of a 6' pram dinghy!

Andy_P
22nd May 2014, 11:42
As a person who knows the square root of sod all about sailing, and discussing this story in the pub last night.

Was the vessel was sufficiently crewed for such a journey? It appears to me that it would require more people to sail her, (as in the pictures you see of her in racing mode), with all the rigging/sails etc to be handled. Members of the crew would need sleep/eat/rest at some point. Or would four people have been adequate?

You can sail them solo. I think they had 4?? 4 is plenty, probably an overkill if you are not racing.

Eh what? Thats about the hull speed of a 6' pram dinghy!

550t square rigger, a not so modern pram would out perform!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd May 2014, 11:57
Akro71 - For ocean deliveries, three is the normal minimum, and adequate. Four is sensible. The reported experience levels seem well up to the task. As far as I can tell, the company is professional.

For racing, with spinnaker, 10 inshore and 9 offshore is common; but that is for optimum sail/boat handling, not because it's needed.
As Andy P says, one can sail the world singlehanded in a 75 foot trimaran. I don't think too many people think Ellen MacArthur is unprofessional.

Akrotiri71
22nd May 2014, 13:56
Thanks for your answers. And I wouldn't dare imply that any of them were unprofessional.

Fingers still crossed here.

N707ZS
22nd May 2014, 15:43
Presume this would of been the ideal job for a Nimrod!

The Nip
22nd May 2014, 15:48
Although I am not a sailor, I was aboard a Maersk Tanker in the SA.

Captain tells us to relax while he sets ship for storm. Faces ship towards storm, puts down anchor and waits. Following morning the ship had still been doing 5kts dragging the anchor in a force 11. Never in my life have I experienced anything as powerful.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd May 2014, 18:20
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes,
when the waves turn the minutes to hours"

"The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" - Gordon Lightfoot (HD w/ Lyrics) - YouTube

RHKAAF
22nd May 2014, 19:45
Whether any survivors are found--either alive or dead---the two day stand-down will come back to haunt the USCG. Also, when the Maersk ship found the yacht, a cutter should have been despatched straight away to check the area just in case the liferaft was just over the horizon.
I am not being a Monday morning quarterback here as lots of experienced professionals in the UK held the same opinion.

cornish-stormrider
22nd May 2014, 20:03
Fox3 _ thanks for that, I've got the tune going thru my head now.
try "Solomon Browne" by Seth Lakeman on the Tube of U, if you are lucky you will find it and should be able to find the BBC documentary on there about the Penlee Disaster - and it still chokes me up, thinking about how Cox'n William Trevelyan Richards and his crew set out into that storm.

Heroes All.

chuks
22nd May 2014, 20:08
Do you mean that the container ship should have launched a small boat that should have sailed some distance downwind from the position of the capsized yacht, just in case? How far should that have been?

Please tell us what more, in the opinion of your "experienced professionals," should have been done with regard to this "just over the horizon" scenario of yours; I do not understand.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
22nd May 2014, 20:29
and likewise thank you C-S; hadn't heard this.
I remember Penlee well. I'm half-Cornish, and I've sailed into Mousehole harbour and paid my respects at the memorial.

Lonewolf_50
22nd May 2014, 21:07
Whether any survivors are found--either alive or dead---the two day stand-down will come back to haunt the USCG. Also, when the Maersk ship found the yacht, a cutter should have been despatched straight away to check the area just in case the liferaft was just over the horizon.
I am not being a Monday morning quarterback here as lots of experienced professionals in the UK held the same opinion. In an effort to be objective:

Are you making the presumption that this course of action was not considered by the SAR operations center? Address the idea that this course of action was looked at, but that "rescue" was not seen as an outcome. Consider this if you are directing the search and rescue effort.
Tony Bullimore's boat versus what Maersk Kure found (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/540227-missing-yacht-missingthread.html#post8487393)

Does it appear from this data point that what is at hand is a salvage operation, or a rescue operation? (This image represents the vessel itself being found, no longer searched for ... )
Add a further data point: the SAR center had evidence of two emergency beacons transmitting. Eventually their signal being lost. I am not sure if the beacon locations were near this capsized vessel, or not. That level of detail is unclear in public information to date.

But follow that thought.

Supposing that the Maersk finds the capsized vessel, but that location does not match the locations of the emergency beacons that helped the search effort establish an area wherein to search. Tie this to the point early on in this discussion: more people end up surviving and being rescued who stay with the vessel than don't.

What if the position/drift of this capsized vessel, and the beacon signals, diverged? We don't know this, but it would explain why a decision would be made not to send a cutter a thousand miles east to an abandoned vessel.

Another thought.

"Just over the horizon" seems to overlook the point that most of the search was done by aircraft. I am bringing a pilot's point of view to the SAR problem. From "up there" we can see a lot farther than those on the surface. I seriously doubt that when the Maersk arrived on site that they found a recent happening. They too were time late to that datum.

Of course, we have in the public statements an understanding that during much of the search the vis was pretty poor, so "seeing farther" in one mile visibility isn't seeing much farther at all. :sad:

Dushan
22nd May 2014, 21:45
Whether any survivors are found--either alive or dead---

How does that work?

pigboat
23rd May 2014, 02:24
I asked the question on the previous thread and either missed the answer or no one answered. Were they in the Gulf Stream when the yacht capsized? If the answer is no it was a rescue attempt for only a very short time, at which point it became a recovery attempt.

Dushan
23rd May 2014, 03:24
I think there was a reference to 1,000 NM east of Massachsets, so too far north to be in the soup.

chuks
23rd May 2014, 07:17
It's now about "bringing closure" for the families. In other words, there's the nagging thought that the yachtsmen are out there somewhere waiting to be found alive, and never mind all those boring facts about survival times, let alone the likelihood of being found in the vastness of the ocean. No, we are now in the realm of emotion, with our Coast Guard charged with stilling all doubts about the fate of the four yachtsmen, and never mind the cost and the risk of doing that.

Why does this make me think of our First Lady posing with a placard reading "Bring back our girls!"? Looking for a small, dispersed group of people among an unfriendly populace in a thinly-settled part of the world is about as difficult as searching for four missing yachtsmen in the vastness of an ocean, but, hey, those making the demands for the near-impossible are not those tasked with the job of doing the search!

If we can only get enough "hits" then success is assured, so get busy "tweeting," everyone.

Ancient Mariner
23rd May 2014, 07:32
Spending gazillions of money on the search for MA370 on the other hand is good? Because we need to find out so it does not happen again? Because the relatives need closure? Because of peoples morbid curiosity? Or just because it was an airplane not a ship, or in this case, a boat.
Per

500N
23rd May 2014, 07:39
OK, here is a question for you all.

What would the USCG done in relation to the French Yachtsman
and Tony Bullimore ?

I think the French yachtsman was sending a signal and they knew
he was alive but I believe Tony Bullimore was a no hope until they
banged on the hull and he swam out - many, many days after
he capsized.

Would the USCG have gone, "nope, too far, too cold, no one would
survive that" and so not even bother sending a ship 1400 nm ???

(As it was, 5 aircraft with 6 crews, 3 ships and a helicopter and a few million $$$)

Food for thought !

John Hill
23rd May 2014, 07:48
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rose Noelle was a trimaran that capsized in the southern Pacific Ocean off the coast of New Zealand in 1989. Four men (John Glennie, James Nalepka, Rick Hellriegel and Phil Hoffman) survived adrift on the wreckage of the ship for 119 days.

Four months under an overturned trimaran..


Lost at sea - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10600306)

rh200
23rd May 2014, 08:00
Personally, even if its about just finding the hull, checking there's no bodies in it, and then sinking the f$%^er, so there's one less floating piece of garbage out there I would be happy.

Ancient Mariner
23rd May 2014, 08:23
On March 22, 1973 the Norwegian vessel Norse Variant was lost in a hurricane of the coast of New Jersey. Of the 30 people on board, one person was picked up after three days by the MT Mobile Lube. In strong winds, high seas and snowy conditions the tanker was able to pick him up without the use of a MOB and only with open life boats. No health and safety or pissing around there, it was, and is called seamanship.
On the same day and in the same storm the MV Anita was lost with all hands. That hit hard since I was on her sister ship, but in the Pacific Ocean at the time.
Per

500N
23rd May 2014, 08:31
Ancient

"seamanship" and a "Can Do" attitude :ok:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
23rd May 2014, 09:38
There is a very big difference between survival chances in an upturned multihull, and the chances in an upturned monohull. Every good multihull sailor plans for survival after capsize, and when crossing the Atlantic I carried 120 days of water/food precisely because of the incident John mentioned.

500N
23rd May 2014, 10:12
Wet

After the initial notification, I believe nothing. Here are two parts from the navy write up.


In the early hours of 6 January 1997 a call came through from race officials reporting that multiple ARGUS beacons, belonging to Theirry Dubois (Pour Amnesty International) and Tony Bullimore (Exide Challenger), had been detected in the Southern Ocean some 1400 nautical miles south-south-west of Perth. The MRCC again called upon the ADF for assistance. As a signatory to the"


"A RAAF Orion located Thierry Dubios in the water the same afternoon that Adelaide sailed from FBW and a few hours later a second Orion sighted the upturned hull of Exide Challenger. These aircraft not only provided information on the location of the yachts, but were able to provide immediate assistance by dropping Air Sea Rescue Kits to the distressed Dubois. Nothing could be seen of Bullimore."

500N
23rd May 2014, 11:09
Wet

I stand corrected.

Non of that made the papers / news when it was happening,
Which isn't surprising.

SLFguy
23rd May 2014, 12:47
We had a couple of creel fishermen who were 'lost' the other day and after 48hours the SAR was stood down.

They were found by another fishing vessel a day later.

Ancient Mariner
23rd May 2014, 13:05
Merchant navy sailors and fishermen have always been expandable. Nothing new. There are exceptions, but few and far between.
per

G-CPTN
23rd May 2014, 13:36
fishermen have always been expandable
Due to telling tall tales, no doubt . . .

Ancient Mariner
23rd May 2014, 13:43
We need to be expandable to fit all that beer we drink.
Per

Since I'm a stubborn old git, I'll refuse the edit the original posting.

VP959
23rd May 2014, 20:22
It seems the wreckage of this yacht has just been found. No more information at the moment, but (as I posted in the now deleted thread), regrettably, survival in the Atlantic at this time of the year isn't very probable, unless the crew were very, very, lucky and got into a liferaft, which, frankly, seems to be fairly unlikely given the sea state at the time of the incident.

I hope I'm wrong, but, like others here, I've done enough annual dinghy drills in the sea over the years (and was unfortunate in that mine were always in April) to know that if you can't get in the dinghy within around 20 minutes or so you almost certainly won't make it, and will probably be dead within 12 hours at best.

beaufort1
24th May 2014, 09:15
BBC News - Cheeki Rafiki: Life raft found on damaged yacht (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27553902)

Looks like the keel bolts sheared and delamination of the hull. It would explain why they discovered an ingress of water but couldn't determine where it was exactly.

Mr Optimistic
24th May 2014, 10:30
Didn't the photo from the maerk show a keel?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
24th May 2014, 11:01
No, it showed the keel missing. The vertical object was the rudder.

Mr Optimistic
24th May 2014, 11:11
Ta for that.

KING6024
24th May 2014, 11:32
Interesting that Liferaft still on board,in my seagoing days liferafts were secured on deck by strap with a Senhouse slip ( quick release ) and a hydrostatic release which should release raft when submerged.


Colin.

500N
24th May 2014, 11:48
"It would explain why they discovered an ingress of water but couldn't determine where it was exactly."

I would have thought an experienced sailor would have worked out
that it was the keel where the leak was when they couldn't find
it coming in from elsewhere.

Re the life raft, as someone else said, must have been a
very quick or catastrophic capsize.

At least they have now done the right thing and checked the boat,
even if it does show bad news.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
24th May 2014, 11:55
I still feel very strongly that the search should not have been recommenced. The latest news has confirmed the reasons the USCG abandoned the search in the first place.
Have we heard anyone apologising for questioning their judgement? More importantly, does anyone think the politicians will up the funding of the relevant agencies to cover the additional costs of recommencing the search?

What the politicians have effective done to the Coastguards is said. I don't trust your judgement, you'll do what I say for no good reason other than I've said it, and furthermore you can pay for it.

Working out where a leak is coming from in a modern cruiser racer is not easy. To save costs, many parts are glassed in and compartments sealed. Having spent 24 hours trying to trace a major electrical problem in a new Beneteau in the Atlantic in nice weather (a whole story in itself),it would be a bloody nightmare in 20 ft seas. Unless the keel was creaking loudly, I'm not surprised they didn't find it.

Effluent Man
24th May 2014, 18:25
In these days of straitened economic circumstances I can't help feeling that it would be appropriate if people had insurance cover for the cost of searches. Especially when engaged in extremely high cost sports such as this.

It seems wrong to me that other people,many of them disabled,are being turned out of their houses to save quite small sums.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
24th May 2014, 18:31
Any kind of compulsory insurance would prohibit those happy to sail without it and with no expectation of SAR support.

Perhaps insurance should instead be prohibited, then people would choose more suitable yachts to make such voyages.

tony draper
24th May 2014, 18:42
What we are seeing is the creation of another news media industry to add to the grief industry they kicked off with the Princess Di thing,this one is called the false hope program,any disaster with missing persons be it aircraft ship or just missing persons,get the relatives in front of the cameras as much as you can preferably but understandably in a very emotional and upset state and you can run with it for days,great if there is a happy ending but the arsoles in the news rooms don't really care one way or another, it fills their empty shallow 24 hour news channels.
:uhoh:

G-CPTN
24th May 2014, 19:05
it fills their empty shallow 24 hour news channels.
It seems the basis of most of the 'media news' these days - they seem to create emotive accounts out of nothing.

pigboat
24th May 2014, 19:24
Fox any idea who paid for the rescue of all those intrepid mariners who got caught in an early freeze in the Northwest Passage last autumn? There were actually some loons among them who were attempting the traverse riding lake lice.

Ancient Mariner
24th May 2014, 21:15
This time all went well, funny how the emphasize is on the coordinators, not the rescuers. Anyways, well done all.
Per

Coast Guard coordinates rescue of 3 people 350 miles offshore (http://www.uscgnews.com/go/doc/4007/2167842/)

pigboat
24th May 2014, 23:35
Per, listen to a brief interview with Robert Cusick, one of only three survivors of the SS Marine Electric. He credits a song with keeping him alive.

fT-aEcPgkuA

The Mary Ellen Carter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mary_Ellen_Carter)

meadowrun
25th May 2014, 01:33
Interesting they found it relatively quickly. MH370 - different story - albeit bigger ocean.

John Hill
25th May 2014, 01:39
Cheeki Rafiki is reported in distress and responsible SAR authorities do a search and find nothing. A ship finds an upturned hull but does not investigate further. SAR search is resumed due to public pressure and the hull is again found but this time (several days, almost a week(?) after first sighting of the hull) someone taps on the hull and hears no response so everyone declared lost.

Three cheers for the gallant SAR chaps eh?

500N
25th May 2014, 01:43
John

I wonder what would have happened if they had got the same response
the Australian Petty Officer got when he bang on Tony Bullimores hull :O

Apart from sheer euphoria as occurred with Bullimore, some serious questions would have been asked and I think should be asked in case it happens again.



As an aside, I think after Tony Bullimore surfaced from under the yacht
he kissed the Petty Officer he was so happy ;)

Dushan
25th May 2014, 02:20
Was she cute, the petite officer?

500N
25th May 2014, 02:22
A big, hairy, weathered MALE Sailor :p :O
I'll find the note, it is quite funny !

http://i61.tinypic.com/2s8kdif.jpg

onetrack
25th May 2014, 04:23
John Hill - I understand the NZ SAR authorities haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, after their slow response, and then their early pull-out, in their attempt to find the missing yacht Nina, in the Tasman Sea last year.

http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/family-of-missing-yacht-not-ready-to-give-up

vee-tail-1
25th May 2014, 04:33
One thing puzzles me about the capsized yacht. Surely the keel attachment to the hull should be incapable of being torn off under any circumstances whilst in the sea. Could this tragic accident be due to a design fault in the yacht's construction? Is there a yachting equivalent of aircraft design rules like BCARs or EASA, or are boat builders unregulated?

John Hill
25th May 2014, 04:35
I understand the NZ SAR authorities haven't exactly covered themselves in glory, after their slow response, and then their early pull-out, in their attempt to find the missing yacht Nina, in the Tasman Sea last year.

You make a statement like that you should show something to back it up.

500N
25th May 2014, 04:39
John

In the article John, read it. It says a review for XYZ reasons.

A fair bit of discussion was had at the time about the slow, lack of response.
It was in all the papers here in Aus.

I know in the back woods of NZ it takes time for the newspaper firelighter
to get down to you so you might not be aware ;) :O

John Hill
25th May 2014, 04:50
Yeah right, OK.

So how about you fill in some details, for starters and regarding slow response when was the vessel reported missing and when did the search start?

500N
25th May 2014, 05:10
I think every country has had it's bad SAR's, Australia included
so probably best we don't pick over the bad ones.

John Hill
25th May 2014, 05:36
Yeah right, you were happy enough to make allegations about timely response (or lack of) and when I ask for details you go all coy on the subject.:(

chuks
25th May 2014, 07:55
It turns out that our Coast Guard made the right call, to call off the search after 53 hours, but here we can see them still being second-guessed!

What part of "It's very big, the ocean, so that sometimes people are lost at sea," is so very difficult to understand?

Really, we are getting onto a slippery slope here when extreme public pressure can drive decision-making by SAR professionals. It's akin to mobilizing the town's entire fire department just to get Fluffy out of that big tree in Mrs. Miggins' back yard, once you can put that front and center thanks to the internet.

Spare a thought for the hundreds, thousands, even, of poor souls who are lost every day trying to cross from Africa to Europe across the Mediterranean, much more easily found and rescued yet let left to die, because? Well, that would be like trying to bail out the ocean with a spoon, rescuing every boatload of refugees, so that the idea goes quietly ignored by the same people who bleat on at great length about searching for four missing yachtsmen, how much better that should have been done, and why it made sense to continue to search even after reason dictated a stop to that.

Come on, people! Let us move on to, "Give me ten thousand 'likes' and I will donate a kidney!"

prospector
25th May 2014, 09:02
One of the earliest cruising yachtsman, who circumnavigated the globe three times if my memory serves me right, stated that the worst thing a cruising yachtsman can have on their boat is a transmitting radio.

One of the prime objects, or it used to be, was to equip your boat so that it could meet all the problems that you might reasonably expect to meet at sea. If you make a stuff up, and do not prepare adequately, then there is no reason why you should expect others to risk their lives to rescue you. It, for the most part happens, but it is certainly not an inalienable right.

As to the missing yacht in the Tasman that so many seem to be so upset about, the boat had not been slipped for a long long time, apparently a newer, much bigger engine had been fitted, to a boat that was well past its prime. If, as many knowledgable people suspect, it got caught out in some rough weather, something that one should always be prepared for, then that big engine may well have, after the boat fell off a big wave, just have continued going downwards, through the ancient wood that was never constructed to take such a load, and the boat would have sunk in a matter of minutes.

Effluent Man
25th May 2014, 09:44
vee-tail,
As I understand it the suggestion is that because this was a charter yacht it was possibly damaged by a previous user who may have hit the keel and weakened the laminate around where it attached.Consequently it would sail fine until put under the kind of stress generated by a force ten gale and subsequently a catestrophic failure occurred.

onetrack
25th May 2014, 10:39
@John Hill - Last communication from the Nina was a text via satphone on June 4. 2103 to the meteorologist, Bob McDavitt. McDavitt continued to send messages to the Nina for several days without receiving a reply. Friends of the crew alerted the authorities on June 14, 2013 that they believed the Nina was missing or in serious trouble.
The NZ SAR authorities state they had no reason to suspect the Nina had met with disaster or problems, because they received no EPIRB distress signals nor any radio distress calls.
However, the NZ authorities should have been on the alert because they would have known the Nina was taking a risk in crossing the Tasman in June - and even more so, when they would have realised there was a large gale-force storm in the region that the Nina was heading into.

The Disappearance of the Nina | Sail Magazine (http://www.sailmagazine.com/nina)

@Prospector - I personally can't see your scenario for the Nina as realistic - because the new engine fitted (a 150HP Cummins), might have had increased power - but it more than likely weighed less than the original engine, which would have been a low HP engine of very substantial mass.

Seeing as the Nina ran into 68mph winds and 26' waves, it's quite possible a king wave swamped or capsized the schooner.
We have no idea how long any survivors of the Nina lasted, but an early start to a search is absolutely vital in nearly every case.

John Hill
25th May 2014, 11:55
OneTrack However, the NZ authorities should have been on the alert because they would have known the Nina was taking a risk in crossing the Tasman in June - and even more so, when they would have realised there was a large gale-force storm in the region that the Nina was heading into.


Are you suggesting NZ should have mounted an aerial search of the Tasman Sea for a boat that had not sent any distress messages nor activated an EPIRB and was not overdue at her destination?

If not an aerial search just what do you think they should have done?

vee-tail-1
25th May 2014, 13:10
Effluent Man many thanks for the info ...

onetrack
25th May 2014, 13:23
If not an aerial search just what do you think they should have done?If a boat has advised it is heading into a severe storm, then fails to make contact in any form despite repeated attempts to contact it - does it make sense to you to send out an aircraft to see if it has actually come to grief? It does to me. Your SAR spent a considerable time later, searching, when an earlier effort might have come up with some result.

VP959
25th May 2014, 15:57
One thing puzzles me about the capsized yacht. Surely the keel attachment to the hull should be incapable of being torn off under any circumstances whilst in the sea. Could this tragic accident be due to a design fault in the yacht's construction? Is there a yachting equivalent of aircraft design rules like BCARs or EASA, or are boat builders unregulated?

Boat building is regulated up to a point, but racing craft are excluded from a lot of the regulations, and even cruising craft aren't regulated to anything like the degree aircraft are in terms of structural integrity.

Keels breaking off isn't an infrequent occurrence in high performance sailing boats. Keels have been getting deeper and narrower for years, and the bending loads at the hull attachment can be massive. Well-designed boats may well have had some finite element analysis on the attachment stresses, but few, if any, will have been subjected to structural testing. Many will have probably not even had any detailed stress analysis, or what stress analysis they've had has been based on assumptions of loads that may well be far from those that might be seen in reality, in bad conditions.

yotty
25th May 2014, 16:30
Some info about construction standards in the EU http://www.britishmarine.co.uk/upload_pub/RCD_Boatbuilders_Guide_Apr06.pdf

Effluent Man
25th May 2014, 16:48
The interview I saw suggested that charter boats got treated a bit like hire cars (P.J.O'Rourke says they are the fastest cars in the world) as people are only paying the hire fee and don't own them.

This of course sits very badly with a vessel that is constructed to race rather than one designed like a pedalo to take everything a drunken holidaymaker can throw at it.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
25th May 2014, 17:04
The construction of cruiser racers is not, generally, primarily aimed at racing. Bolted on keels are cheaper to construct, and the interiors are generally aimed at maximising the number of berths. A good ocean cruising yacht, such as a Hallberg Rassy or an Island Packet, is a fair bit more expensive and has about half the number of berths for an equivalent cruiser racer.

An analogy would be the choice between a 4wd people carrier and an old-style Land Rover. The former is preferable for running around town or bimbling across Europe. The problem comes when you, say, decide to move from Europe to Cape Town. The people carrier is perfect for both ends, but not the best for the journey. You prep it as well as you can, but if things turn nasty you'll wish you'd bought the Landy.

Mechta
25th May 2014, 17:11
Well-designed boats may well have had some finite element analysis on the attachment stresses, but few, if any, will have been subjected to structural testing. Many will have probably not even had any detailed stress analysis, or what stress analysis they've had has been based on assumptions of loads that may well be far from those that might be seen in reality, in bad conditions.

...and all that assumes the glass fibre/resin layup on the actual boat is as good as that used in the finite element model. There was a case in which insecticide was sprayed after hours in a factory laying up helicopter rotor blades. The insecticide made a good release agent and the blades delaminated in service.

FlyingOfficerKite
25th May 2014, 17:39
Not a sailor, but from what I understand the crew radioed to say boat was taking on water.

So:

Why not abandon ship or prepare to abandon ship then?

If the 'hole' was plugged maybe they thought problem was solved and no need to prepare to abandon ship?

Maybe two events:

Hit object in water which holed boat and weakened keel;

Crew 'repaired' damage and continued only for second, later, event where keel failed and they were unable to initiate abandon ship?

Tragic in any event.

chuks
25th May 2014, 18:29
Yes, and if you bought the Landy, you would wish you bought the Toyota Land Cruiser! (The trailer hitch on the Land Cruiser has been specifically designed to be able to tow a Land Rover. Allegedly.)

I read that attachment about keel bolts on a Beneteau, how if they and their associated washers were corroded then you should just give them a good wire-brushing, instead of spending something like $30 to replace all four ... four!?

Well the older King Airs have outer wings held on with just four bolts each, but if you found some corrosion on them, I think you would do a bit more about it than just wire-brushing the rust off.

What is this for blind optimism: a safety-critical component sits there in a bath of salt water and bilge, quietly rusting away, while it's all G&Ts on the poop deck until there's a sudden twang? Holy mackerel! I though bush pilots were crazy, but we come off more like librarians compared to that.

It wouldn't be that hard to think up some sort of failure-tolerant design, some kind of back-up to at least keep the keel from heading for Davy Jones's Locker if the bolts failed. Of course absent some regulatory requirement for that, cost would probably rule that out for the average shiny toy.

VP959
25th May 2014, 18:49
I've messed about in boats for over 40 years. The older boats I've owned or restored were built to take the sort of punishment the sea can unexpectedly dish out from time to time, but even then keel bolts were treated with great respect. I remember taking the galvanised keel bolts out when I restored a 1920's built 22ft LOD gaff cutter, built of pitch pine on oak. There were (IIRC) 8 bolts, of 3/4" diameter, going the whole depth of the keel. When I drove them out to drop the keel (which was a big lump of lead) they were good as new, even after around 50 years in the boat. Even then, on a boat as small and unstressed as that, I didn't re-use them, but had the local smith make up some new ones and had them hot dip galvanised before refitting them, well-bedded in linseed oil putty.

The factors of safety on older boats was massive, probably well over 10, whereas modern racers and racer cruisers are built with very much lower safety factors, in order to save weight and improve performance.

I once helped a friend take the stainless steel keel bolts out of a 1980's built GRP yacht (around 30ft LOA) for inspection, and after 8 years they were so pitted and corroded that I doubt they had more than 1/3rd of the design strength. We replaced them with new ones, but I have no doubt the new ones went the same way after a few years. The days when sailors used to remove at least one keel bolt each winter layup, for inspection and a guide as to how the others may be, have long since gone. The majority of modern boat owners of the type involved in this accident do very little actual work themselves on the boat, so lack that vital understanding of the state and condition of the critical bits that are corroding and wearing.

John Hill
25th May 2014, 21:23
One of the photos of the upturned hull of Cheeki Rafiki..
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/75075000/jpg/_75075610_140523-n-zz999-002.jpg

Presumably the white area is the original contact patch and the rusty spots on it are where bolts have failed. If that is the case at least 2/3rds of the bolts had completely gone without obvious damage to the hull and the remaining bolt(s) were still holding and damaged the hull when the keel parted company.

Dushan
25th May 2014, 23:33
It doesn't look like there were any backing plates, on the inside, for those bolts. Probably in the name of saving weight or money. Take your pick. Additionally it looks like the bond between the keel and the hullwas not waterproof and resulted in delamination. The bolt holes should be protected with epoxy on the inside walls to prevent water penetration.

Beneteaus are not the quality they used to be. On a delivery trip from Norfolk VA to BVI, via Bermuda, on a friends Beneteau 47' cruiser, we encountered numerous leaks once the bow started to submarine. The contact between the deck and the hull in the anchor locker area was not sealed and water started entering the boat, but inside the liner and ended up in the aft cabin. Not a life and death situation although the bilge pump was a bit undersized and floor boards started floating. Everything was completely soaked by the time we got to St. George's.

Don't even get me started on the shabby electrics, Fox will concurr.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
26th May 2014, 00:34
Oh boy, will I.
I delivered a brand-new Beneteau from Myrtle Beach, NC to the BVI.

Worth bearing in mind that the Beneteau factory was located, for tax/subsidy reasons, 50 miles inland and employs ex-tobacco workers; who know as much about offshore sailing as you would expect them to, i.e.
http://www.brickpicker.com/images/set_images/medium/brickpicker_set_534_1.jpg

The boat passed all checks, then 2 days offshore the engine wouldn't start.
After about 12 hours hanging upside down in the bilges and assorted other cubbyholes, I determined:
All the domestic electrics were running off the engine battery. The domestic battery was a 120 lb monster in the lazerette, not providing power to anything. The battery gauges had been rewired to read what was expected in the checks, rather than fixing the major miswiring problem. Every wire (live or neutral) was red and unlabelled. 24 wires were glassed in under the engine, and had been twisted so the top wire on one side wasn't the top wire on the other side.
We then spent an hour shifting the monster to next to the engine, with much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Never again.

West Coast
26th May 2014, 01:18
Is that the RN's newest ship? Where does the IPod plug in?

Dushan
26th May 2014, 01:29
Large scale production boats are not built for anything other than coastal cruising and chartering. I chartered a 50' Bavaria in the Adriatic, and while it looked like nice solid boat the number of deficiencies fiilled two pages. I sent that to the charter company and the manufacturer. Never heard back form either.

The Baneteau I was on wasn't quite as bad because it was sailed for a year in Lake Ontario before the trip south. However any serious sea issues were obviously not addressed. The electrics were flimsy and additional equipment was badly installed. The Autohelm ram jumped off the guiding pin and electric connections were broken, along with parts of the PCB. I spent an afternoon, in heaving seas, soldering wires down below. Oh, what fun...

Fox3WheresMyBanana
26th May 2014, 01:30
The RN version is grey and has a peashooter at the front. It still costs £257 million and will take 15 years to build, and thanks to EU equality legislation now has to have a second sailor who is not gay :E

For my solo crossing of the Atlantic (France-USA), I completely rewired (electrics and electronics) and replumbed my boat, building my own solar panel from scratch. I even had a breadmaker and a mini-washing machine. After 7 months, 7,000 nm and one tornado, the list of defects was........1 broken wine glass (in harbour, by a Frenchman, after 6 days continuous partying) - I refuse to drink wine out of plastic cups.

500N
26th May 2014, 01:38
Sounds pretty piss poor.

The thing is, boats leak and have problems, they more often than not
get back to port.

Aircraft tend to fall out of the sky so problems become apparent and widely known very quickly - and fixed !!!

India Four Two
29th May 2014, 02:41
A good ocean cruising yacht, such as a Hallberg Rassy or an Island Packet


Fox3,

Well said. I've done a few trips in Beneteaus in nice sheltered waters like the Gulf Islands and the Bay of Islands. They're nice and roomy and quite fast, but I never felt I would like to be out in the open ocean in bad weather. I remember the first time I saw the lines of an Island Packet, I thought "That's the boat I would like to cross an ocean in."

Lonewolf_50
29th May 2014, 22:42
Speaking of beautiful sail boats (http://www.offcenterharbor.com/videos/bringing-boats-life-rockport-marine/?awt_l=ECxOE&awt_m=3bC8N1zI1IjDQ9k)... enjoy this little story of one such craft.

G-CPTN
30th May 2014, 00:00
70,000 hours work - must've cost a fortune (never mind all the materials).

Looks beautiful workmanship (didn't see any female workers).

West Coast
30th May 2014, 00:55
70,000 hours work - must've cost a fortune (never mind all the materials).

There's hobbies, and then there's hobbies...

To have the time, money and patience to do something like that is a blessing I've not been endowed with.

Lonewolf_50
30th May 2014, 13:25
That company was hired on to make that boat by the fellow who spoke into the microphone at the end. That was not a hobbyists production, that was a build by professional boatwrights.

G-CPTN
30th May 2014, 13:40
I wonder what the cost of restoration (of a beautiful design) was compared to a scratch-built new vessel.

Mr Optimistic
31st May 2014, 11:36
What happens now...hull just left or is HMG inclined to recover?

JamesT73J
29th Apr 2015, 14:33
Report is out. It is a PDF. (https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55408664e5274a157200005b/MAIBInvReport_8_2015.pdf)

An interesting read; The vessel according to Section 1.14 was actually out of code; this in itself not a big deal, but it did mean it missed an inspection (March 2014). The first inspection in March 2011 rectified a defect (probably caused by grounding) in the hull grid.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
29th Apr 2015, 15:51
i cant see a chart for Bermuda so don’t rely* want to go there*[sic]

I don't think any blame attaches to Beneteau or previous repairers. The risk of keel loosening and matrix debonding is known. The unwise business is when European companies started routinely transiting boats like this Transatlantic for the Caribbean season. Beneteau has a manufacturing facility in the USA to supply boats for the Caribbean market (I've helped deliver one).

Continuing on with known and increasing water ingress was very unwise.
The skipper had already excluded the advised routings (either via Bermuda or staying south till the Azores, and the options that all other yachts on passage at the time took to avoid the weather.
The skipper decided to head for the Azores,which kept him in the Gulf Stream and in the forecast path of a major depression. Heading for Nova Scotia would have avoided both.
The Service sailing schools used to require the mate be qualified to one step below the skipper's minimum qual. for the voyage to allow informed consultation, as the MAIB recommends here.
Liferaft not stowed on deck for an ocean passage. This is just dumb.


The operator (and skipper) knew perfectly well from emails and phone conversations with the MCA just before departure that the voyage was illegal due to a missed inspection, which had been skipped on cost grounds alone.
Furthermore, that was for a Cat 2 certification. The vessel should have been licenced under Cat 0, including for its original passages across the Atlantic. This is a flagrant (and not uncommon) bending of the rules for subsequent commercial gain. I expect there will be a clampdown pretty soon. The MCA knows very well this has been going on for years, so bears some of the blame.

Press-on-itis plus penny-pinching.

ChrisVJ
30th Apr 2015, 01:44
I am probably speaking out of turn here but I can not, for one second, understand why modern boats use such a totally outdated and impractical design for attaching the ballast keel.

In the days of wooden boats there was one solid big piece of wood down the middle of the boat and if you wanted to hang several tons of ballast on something it had to be on that. Even then they frequently placed bolts several inches apart laterally so they got the best leverage available.

In modern boats built with fibreglass it is easy to design structure where the stresses of the keel could be taken out over many inches, if not a couple of feet and keels shaped with a plate top to match and faired into the shape of the hull. The loads would then be diminished by an order of magnitude. I saw this suggested in a sailing magazine at least forty years ago.

The idea that one should unnecessarily load up several tons laterally of dynamic load over an area of a few inches on a material like fibreglass seems to me to be stupid beyond words. The number of failures of this type just make it more obvious.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
30th Apr 2015, 11:58
Horses for courses.
The boat was designed for inshore racing with the capability for occasional ocean passages.
Routinely using it for crossing the Atlantic twice a year, coupled with hiring it out for sail and race training where groundings are more likely to occur, and skipping mandatory inspections, and not equipping the boat correctly for an ocean passage, and.....................................................

On Stormforce's website, they claim to be the World's premier RYA training centre. They also claim about the Atlantic Rally for Cruisers 2011

Despite various sea schools marketing this product in 2011, Stormforce Coaching was the only RYA Training Centre to make it to the start line.

Perhaps that would be because their use of the boat on a Cat 2 certificate (not more than 60 miles from a safe haven) was both illegal and dangerous?

Stupid use by a bunch of cowboys should not reflect on the boat, which was Bruce Farr designed, and submitted by Beneteau for Veritas approval (not required), that was and is fine for its intended purpose