Ncik

That is an immense crash! Hopefully noone is too injured. Clearly starboard boat was in the wrong... (can't believe I was the first to bring it up)

.

Fcuk!

You have succeeded already, but thought I'd add my two cents. Eucalyptus Oil Made short(er) work of sail number goo where other options (acetone, turps, isopropyl, etc.) failed.

I don't like the idea. Sleeve length is the least of your worries, the hinge pin will take all the longitudinal and transverse bending moments when the rigging relaxes under load. And all the gooseneck loads. For the design, think of it as a mast step at deck level which needs to accommodate high loads and allow a bit of movement. All the hinged mast steps I've seen for helping to raise masts pull the hinge pin out once the mast is standing so that the hinge doesn't take any load. No bending moments should be applied to the mast step, unless it is a free-standing mast. It doesn't look like a particularly tall mast...have you considered just making a lighter one? An alternative is to fix the lower mast through the deck like a king post, then fit a mast step to the top of it. ie, create a proper deck stepped mast base.

Some interesting info. https://www.sailing.org/classesandequipment/offshore/plan_review.php A little up from the bottom, in black and white, is a clear indication that there were many layers of QC applied prior to construction. A standard ISO 12215 An engineer A class society Then during construction there should be QC processes of the builder. This may've even been inspected or qualified by the class society. Then after construction there is inspection processes of the owner. Hopefully the review looks at all 5 of those, because here we have a keel that went through all the processes laid down by WS...and still failed... Why? World Sailing are missing a golden opportunity to review their process. They should be biting the bullet and getting that hull back to shore to enable a thorough forensic engineering analysis without the risks associated with a fatal incident coroners review. No-ones going to jail over this, insurance can't void the policy because the process has clearly been followed, emotions are lower, experts can be involved and make their own recommendations rather than relying on a coroners interpretation. This needs to happen.

The owners, who just lost their boat, don't have a copy of the plans (boat and keel) that they're willing to provide to any legal entity that asks? Wasn't a Class Society also involved with the approval? A lot could be gleaned from the plans, of both the boat and the keel.

Sounds like a predetermined outcome and a complete white-wash. The keel fell off for a reason. What was that reason and how can it be avoided in the future? I'm coming at this from an engineering point of view. Regular and correct inspections are good keel boat owner practice because surely they want to sleep at night...whether that is mandatory or not is another matter, the stamping things was merely a hypothetical proposal. I have nothing to do with AS but understand why they would want to investigate a keel failure. Whether they have the skills to do so is another matter.

Are you going to wrape anything around teh outside?

Re AMSA: I'm not so sure, but have nothing solid to base that on. If it was a rescue they would certainly be involved. Was it a "reportable marine incident"? If it wasn't then why not, because it was damn close to having a coroner involved. So who, if anyone, should look at it?

This is pretty simple for me and can be summed up with this question... "Would you crew on a boat where the owner doesn't look after the keel?" After a grounding does the boat get pulled and properly inspected? Is the keel pulled off the boat regularly and inspected? Do new crew ask to see a survey report of the last keel inspection? Does an inspection "stamp" need to be clearly visible on the keel (like fire extinguishers)? IMHO owners should already be doing this...or similar. Particularly if intending to race with multiple crew onboard. I realise there is a cost to this and some owners won't like that, but noone likes keels falling off and they can be far costlier. Keel safety is not only important for safety but for getting bums on the rail. It doesn't take too many keels falling off to put new sailors way off side. The indirect costs to "sailing" may far out-weigh owners inspection costs. At this point, AS sure as hell have a vested interest in keels falling off. If AS aren't looking at it, who should? AMSA? WS? Coroner? Class society? The ins-and-outs of the proposed inquiry are of little concern compared with keels falling off, as long as the truth is discovered. A white-washed inquiry is of no value to "sailing".

(Too much crap conversation so some brief notes) Rudder too short (flying too high). It is clear of the water for a long time before the nose dive. Notice all the rudder quadrant fwd-aft movement. Trying to get the arse back down...futile effort.

Woah woah woah...wtf is going on here...since when did classic 18s have weird measurement rules?

Neither was Showtimes...

You're well on the way to making a large diameter round hole when you don't have a jigsaw, keep drilling holes around the perimeter. Do not drill any more holes until that is properly repaired. G10 top and bottom minimum. But I would seriously consider over-laminating on the top right down onto the deck atleast 50mm because there isn't much for the G10 to bond to around the perimeter. Everything inside the ring of bolt holes cannot be considered structural. Epoxy and glass fibres in the existing holes to get some sort of attachment between top and bottom skins. Ideally, the core should be replaced atleast 50mm beyond the ring of holes, but that's a fair bit of work. My line of thinking is that while the shear strength may not be too adversely affected, there is still a significant moment applied to that base, which could rip the area inside the ring of holes right up.