Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ozmultis

Lagoon Sinks off sunshine coast (Aus)

Recommended Posts

6 o'clock news here had a report of a Lagoon 500 sinking. Thats both sad and somewhat concerning, a modern cat sinking! They really shouldn't.

 

Poor buggers had the boat on the market as well after cruising for three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Five people rescued from sinking catamaran off south-east Queensland coast

Updated 4 hours 22 minutes ago

 

MAP: Brisbane 4000

Five people have been rescued after a catamaran started taking on water off the south-east Queensland coast.

 

An emergency beacon was set off on the US catamaran One World about 1:30am (AEST).

 

Emergency services redirected the China-bound bulk carrier vessel Pan Topaz towards the sinking boat, which was 80 nautical miles north-east of Brisbane.

 

The carrier vessel arrived at the catamaran about 3:00am and picked up the five passengers.

 

No-one has been injured and the group is said to be in good spirits.

 

Topics: emergency-incidents, maritime, brisbane-4000, cape-moreton-4025

 

First posted 6 hours 2 minutes ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forty miles east of Cape Moreton would not have been the place for a 50 foot raft this morning.

Heaps of set across the wind as well.

Seas get really short for the size.

Interested to know the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if the front windows survived or it was a flooding issue somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over on the other thread someone is talking about hull cracks.

Observations at Cape Moreton don't get more than 30 knots.

Although you had a southerly swell, westerly breeze and southerly set so not that pretty if not that big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the Lagoon is still sinking or of it is expected to sink or if it really sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sink, sank sunk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always sad to see a boat lost.

So guess we will seeing an comment from the local cat whackers about how they don't need to carry life rafts because multis don't sink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess the boat weighs maybe 12 ton that is a lot of airtight compartments to keep it afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salvage opportunity... The ISO standards the boat was built to (it's French so that's pretty certain) require it to be unsinkable as long as it's not overloaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sink, sank sunk?

.

..'taking on water' is a far cry from 'sinking',,'sunk' :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salvage opportunity... The ISO standards the boat was built to (it's French so that's pretty certain) require it to be unsinkable as long as it's not overloaded.

 

"Unsinkable" is not achievable. Reducing the risk of sinking is the only thing that can be done. Plus I don't think Lagoons have too many watertight bulkheads, probably just the collision bulkhead up forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow...from lagoon website...

 

"

Buoyancy is a guarantee of safety. All Lagoon catamarans comply with CE standards governing the unsinkability of multihull vessels. The fore and aft compartments of each hull are separated from the boat's living accommodation by watertight bulkheads. The density of the materials used and the absence of ballast increase buoyancy. Even after a collision your Lagoon will still be able to sail.

"

 

"Unsinkability" is a big claim.

 

I retract my previous comment about the bulkheads, it appears they have two. However, two bulkheads does not make a boat unsinkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow...from lagoon website...

 

"

Buoyancy is a guarantee of safety. All Lagoon catamarans comply with CE standards governing the unsinkability of multihull vessels. The fore and aft compartments of each hull are separated from the boat's living accommodation by watertight bulkheads. The density of the materials used and the absence of ballast increase buoyancy. Even after a collision your Lagoon will still be able to sail.

"

 

"Unsinkability" is a big claim.

 

I retract my previous comment about the bulkheads, it appears they have two. However, two bulkheads does not make a boat unsinkable.

 

What about 4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm positive my boat (30' cat) is unsinkable. You could cut it up into little pieces and the bits would still float, just not very habitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm positive my boat (30' cat) is unsinkable. You could cut it up into little pieces and the bits would still float, just not very habitable.

I'm sure a couple of big diesels, alloy rig, windlass, hot and cold everything and granite top benches would fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a little effort from Lagoons side on the construction easy would solve this problem: to really have watertight compartments.

 

 

And then the hole multihull industry would benefit - bec this case isn't good - when they used the last 50 years to tell everybody that multis can't sink.

 

This is a no-brainer for Lagoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it did sink, Lagoons rep went with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that anyone considered a Lagoon as fit for more than floating condo duties, or numpty charter in flat water and light breeze.

Really disappointing about the "watertight bulkhead"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me a line getting wrapped around a prop is something that can happen to most any captain of a charter, flat water and light breeze notwithstanding. If that manages to sink the boat, then I'd say the boat is unsuitable for charter.

 

Lagoon = "Really disappointing" watertight bulkheads?

Lagoon = supporting 17% markups on their vessels to local agents to assume all risks regarding boat manufacture?

Lagoon = Our owner's manuals cannot be relied upon?

 

Hardly a ringing endorsement for the brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

wow...from lagoon website...

 

"

Buoyancy is a guarantee of safety. All Lagoon catamarans comply with CE standards governing the unsinkability of multihull vessels. The fore and aft compartments of each hull are separated from the boat's living accommodation by watertight bulkheads. The density of the materials used and the absence of ballast increase buoyancy. Even after a collision your Lagoon will still be able to sail.

"

 

"Unsinkability" is a big claim.

 

I retract my previous comment about the bulkheads, it appears they have two. However, two bulkheads does not make a boat unsinkable.

 

What about 4?

 

loaded question...it all depends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a little effort from Lagoons side on the construction easy would solve this problem: to really have watertight compartments.

 

 

And then the hole multihull industry would benefit - bec this case isn't good - when they used the last 50 years to tell everybody that multis can't sink.

 

This is a no-brainer for Lagoon.

 

It is a no-brainer for ALL yachts to have watertight bulkheads, except if you're a builder who wants to screw every cent out of the build cost and safety features are first to go. Real watertight doors are pricey. Also watertight bulkheads interfere with the interior arrangement.

 

The consumer voice is not load enough (due to lack of knowledge and small size of group) to change this in the near future.

 

Buyer beware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me a line getting wrapped around a prop is something that can happen to most any captain of a charter, flat water and light breeze notwithstanding. If that manages to sink the boat, then I'd say the boat is unsuitable for charter.

 

Lagoon = "Really disappointing" watertight bulkheads?

Lagoon = supporting 17% markups on their vessels to local agents to assume all risks regarding boat manufacture?

Lagoon = Our owner's manuals cannot be relied upon?

 

Hardly a ringing endorsement for the brand.

+1 It must have been a very strong line!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody see the video? I did. It didn't sink. My take on it, after watching the video is that the owner had done his thing with that boat and now wanted rid of it. On the market and no interest. out sailing and we get a hole in a hull, taking on water. Great opportunity to avoid the hassle of selling. Abandon the viable vessel and declare "it couldn't be saved". I do stop short of suggesting he made the hole. Makes me mad cos it affects my insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody see the video? I did. It didn't sink. My take on it, after watching the video is that the owner had done his thing with that boat and now wanted rid of it. On the market and no interest. out sailing and we get a hole in a hull, taking on water. Great opportunity to avoid the hassle of selling. Abandon the viable vessel and declare "it couldn't be saved". I do stop short of suggesting he made the hole. Makes me mad cos it affects my insurance.

 

Absurd. The only way I know of to fix an attitude like yours is to find yourself in the same predicament some day... Let us know how much this affects your insurance premiums.

 

I think this post by John Metza on the MhMl is a more reasonable assessment of this incident:

 

I have been in two boats with water in them. One with shin deep, one with chest deep. The seas were small by comparison to what they must’ve had with 35kt winds. Once a couple dozen tons of water and belongings start surging from end to end you will want the hell out of there in a hurry. The more it sloshes the more stuff breaks loose. Most of the time it isn’t the calm swimming pool they showed in the movie “All is Lost”. That was a joke and ideal conditions for flooding.

 

I would’ve gotten the hell out of there in a heartbeat, but maybe being in the Coast Guard my chicken buzzer goes off sooner than the average person. Having seen my share of maritime mishaps where people ending up as boated bags of grey liquid stench barely recognizable as humans I wouldn’t take my chances. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. What seems safe one minute can be a disaster the next instant. Didn’t the skipper have have a ton of sailing experience? Tough to second guess somebody who was in the thick of it. He and his crew is alive, job well done in my logbook.

 

Maybe another person could’ve handled the situation, but all that matters is what the skipper and crew felt they could handle. Once panic sets in, rational thought goes out the window and simple tasks become impossible. Hands no longer function and minds get stuck in loops of terror. Ever try to talk to someone panicking? It doesn’t work. In the CG we picked up people who didn’t know what planet they were on and they weren’t even hypothermic. Their minds had gone into some vague shutdown mode where their unblinking faces looked like wax horror figures frozen in time. I have seen these events permanently change people’s brains. They are never the same. If I had a wife or a loved one experiencing the horror of thinking they were in life threatening peril because our boat was filling with water it sure would make the decision about whether to stay on the boat an easy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sink, sank sunk?

.

..'taking on water' is a far cry from 'sinking',,'sunk' :mellow:

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salvage opportunity... The ISO standards the boat was built to (it's French so that's pretty certain) require it to be unsinkable as long as it's not overloaded.

I imagine there would be someone out there already, probably under tow by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming there was no foul play (can never know these days), I feel bad for the crew and the loss of the boat. Couldn't have happened at a better time or place though by the sounds of it, very convenient. A mate and I were towed from not that far from where this happened when our steering failed on his mono then the emergency tiller snapped too.

 

Anyway this story does not make look lagoon look any better. So many stories like this getting around now. When we sailed in to Bundy from New Cal on our Hunter 40.5, a lagoon got hit by a low a week earlier and they nearly lost the boat too. The hull and deck parted.

 

I am very confident my boat will not sink. With a 20-25mm foam core and light glass laminates it would probably never sink even without the the multiple water tight bulkheads it also has. Now a 18 ton boat made out of mostly solid CSM with "water tight" bulkheads with huge holes cut in them to run cables and ducts etc, I would not feel so confident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a snippet of the incident regarding the lagoon which sunk just because a line got tangled in the prop. Disgusting IMO

 

Lagoon’s Response


Lagoon’s response to the accident was to require the owner to send it € 10,000 before it would consider sending a surveyor to conduct a joint inspection of the vessel.


Moreover, Lagoon took the position that Lagoon catamarans are not required by the Recreational Craft Directive to have watertight bulkheads, and therefore that the accident was of no concern to Lagoon.


Following the accident Lagoon removed the sentence “The fore compartments and the engine bilges are watertight” from the plumbing section in the Owner’s Manual.


Lagoon was invited by the owner’s underwriter, which was unwilling to insure the vessel after the accident unless the engine room bulkheads were made watertight, to confirm that all Lagoon yachts would have watertight engine room bulkheads henceforward.


Lagoon was unwilling to confirm that its vessels have watertight bulkheads, notwithstanding the fact that its dealers continue to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proasailor did you watch the video? I just watched it again and re-confirmed my impression.

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/election/video/watch/23330077/victoria-news-headlines-may-8/

 

Nothing in that video supports your wild speculation.

 

The focus here should remain on these two facts:

 

  • a dinghy painter fouling a prop ripped a saildrive out of one hull and
  • internal bulkheads failed to contain the resulting ingress of water

Do you think the owner planned those things? This failure is on Lagoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lagoon which sunk because the dingy painter went around the prop is a different boat (well unless this is what happened here too). AFAICT there is no info on what happened to the one which sunk of Moreton Island. The story of the former one is interesting as it shows the quality and customer support you can expect with lagoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lagoon which sunk because the dingy painter went around the prop is a different boat (well unless this is what happened here too).

Oh? Sorry, did I mix up two different stories? I never liked Lagoon catamarans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Zorro2 posted a link about the one that sunk because of the dingy painter. Its relevant because of Lagoons response regarding the "water tight" compartments and the potential for Lagoons to sink, which they do seem to do when holed going by that well documented incident. I suggest reading his link as its very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Zorro2 posted a link about the one that sunk because of the dingy painter. Its relevant because of Lagoons response regarding the "water tight" compartments and the potential for Lagoons to sink, which they do seem to do when holed going by that well documented incident. I suggest reading his link as its very interesting.

 

I read it two days ago, sorry for the confusion. Really pathetic, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah :( There are probably more lagoon cruising cats out there than any other design. However they are a design I was never interested owning. IMO a mono does almost everything better for the same money than an over priced lagoon. But I believe the US made TPI lagoons were much lighter (could actually sail) and had some kind of build quality and are a design worth considering IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the picture on the front page shows the baot floating ... i.e. it didnt sink ...

or do I see that different ?

 

has it sunk and is gone forever or has it taken in water and was towed to land ?

 

 

Whatever happened to the Alpha 42 ..did she sunk ? found ?

 

In the case of the Alpha I think for sure, that the guys did an awful job trying to sail that thing to shore, after being totally ignorant with tools on board ( or the lack of it ) and nasty weather ....

 

dont know what to think on this one ? Do peeps really call and get off ... that easy ? without trying harder to salvage the boat ?

 

not a good sign that the boat was for sale or at least the plans were in place to sell her ... these buggers loose a lot of value in the first years ...

 

thor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall Lat38 doing some sort of engine outdrive work where the boat stayed in the water and they flooded the stern up to the water line behind the bulkhead. Kinda recall reading that story and thought it was interesting. However any yard person installing stuff and not being supervised can easily compromise a designers intended function of a bulkhead which sounds like thats what happened here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had an FP Bahia 46 that had a cooling hose come off the saildrive, bilge pump completely broken, no-one on board and it flooded the engine room, but no further damage as the water was contained to the engine room as designed. Boat was extremely poorly maintained.

Kent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pic on the front page is for another Lagoon 500 that sink a few years ago when the saildrive ripped out.

Listening to the video, water was 'knee deep and elbow deep', and then the engines failed. Weather was fairly shitty around that time, strong westerlies going against predominant SE swell.

It also seems "watertight bulkhead" means different things to different people. Many do not realize how much water can get through a relatively small hole, particularly if there is extra water pressure from waves involved. Have a look at the watertight bulkheads on many production boats, there are cables, engine controls, exhaust hoses, shit everywhere, all of them will leak like a sieve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I b alook'n fr a ship, for a good long trip, fancied a Lagoon fr 700 d'bloons, wen th wind a start a blow'n ,the hull a start a hole'n...now she underwater in Davey Jones Locker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the interesting part of the Thai sunk one was in court the definition of where does the bilge end and become the engine compartment

"bilge water tight" yer but how far up......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't get over the fact that they can make statements or claims about the boat in the owners manual and not be bound by those.

 

You would think that most people would refer to the owner's manual to find out what they can safely expect in any given situation.

 

If you can't reliably do this why have an owner's manual?

 

This is not a company that I would ever want to buy anything from.

 

How do they stay in business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the Thai boat,

 

How is it acceptable that getting a line around the prop causes the sail drive to pull out?

 

I have done it on an unlit long line (not attached to a fishing boat) at night in the middle of the pacific, not that hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The survey reports on Nipper don't quite back up what Lagoon has sent to SA, appears the aft bulkhead wiring and plumbing conduits 100mm diameter were nowhere near sealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the Thai boat,

 

How is it acceptable that getting a line around the prop causes the sail drive to pull out?

 

I have done it on an unlit long line (not attached to a fishing boat) at night in the middle of the pacific, not that hard to do.

 

I would say that a disturbingly large % of the SA board has had a line around a prop, not that most would like to admit it. I have done it. Yeah its bad seamanship but easy to do on a shorthanded cruising boat with only a minor slip up.

 

Now what failed here? The yanmar/volvo engine mounts or part of the lagoon catamaran? You cant blame lagoon if it was just the mounts that broke. Every time I have heard of it happening the engine just stalls and you need to go for a swim and thats it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SNIP

I would say that a disturbingly large % of the SA board has had a line around a prop, not that most would like to admit it. I have done it. Yeah its bad seamanship but easy to do on a shorthanded cruising boat with only a minor slip up.

 

Guilty as charged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nippers report says there was items installed after the sale that required wires/plumbing to go into the engine room and these were not sealed hence the get out of jail card.

If the engine room was sealed ( I dont know how far up that would need to be) and you filled it with water, on paper you could prove that wouldn't sink it. Might be time Lagoon did that and videoed it for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

SNIP

I would say that a disturbingly large % of the SA board has had a line around a prop, not that most would like to admit it. I have done it. Yeah its bad seamanship but easy to do on a shorthanded cruising boat with only a minor slip up.

 

Guilty as charged

 

Did it my very first time as skipper in a Chrysler 26 with a Sears outboard. After that for some reason we could not start the engine, so we sailed into the can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

SNIP

I would say that a disturbingly large % of the SA board has had a line around a prop, not that most would like to admit it. I have done it. Yeah its bad seamanship but easy to do on a shorthanded cruising boat with only a minor slip up.

 

Guilty as charged

 

Did it my very first time as skipper in a Chrysler 26 with a Sears outboard. After that for some reason we could not start the engine, so we sailed into the can.

I also did it flying my ultralight powered parachute. Lot's of guys like to drop a big American Flag and have it trail the aircraft like a big banner. Yep, I got mine wrapped up in the propeller which killed the engine forcing me to do an engine-out landing.

 

But here is the thing. I am careful nowadays to not have a line in the water that could foul the prop. Why? Because it would be inconvenient to foul the prop and a general bonehead thing to do. Could it cause minor damage? Maybe. That would be uncool. Could it sink the vessel? That is not something I would have ever considered prior to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well JZK, the charter guests probably thought you were a legend sailing back into the slip not knowing about the cock up with the prop "engine must be blown" :P The only time I can think of where fouling a prop on a boat can be more dangerous than fouling one on an aircraft is if your boat is a Lagoon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the Thai boat,

 

How is it acceptable that getting a line around the prop causes the sail drive to pull out?

 

I have done it on an unlit long line (not attached to a fishing boat) at night in the middle of the pacific, not that hard to do.

 

According to the survey they were using a dyneema sheet as a painter (very strong and sinks) and crash-reversed when they fouled their prop:

Since the line was attached to a cleat, tremendous sheer force was applied to the engine mounts which broke along with the cleat.

 

Not quite the same as foiling a prop with a net or rope - it broke the cleat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Re the Thai boat,

 

How is it acceptable that getting a line around the prop causes the sail drive to pull out?

 

I have done it on an unlit long line (not attached to a fishing boat) at night in the middle of the pacific, not that hard to do.

 

According to the survey they were using a dyneema sheet as a painter (very strong and sinks) and crash-reversed when they fouled their prop:

 

I dont think it should matter if it was a steel cable, as long as its not fixed to an object that was not moving with the boat, it does not sound like a situation where you may be forced to abandon ship.

 

I think there is more BS than truth in both versions of the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

When considering whether a boat is unsinkable it may pay to look up the sinking of the Malu Sara in the Torres Straits. She was almost brand new, built to survey, but with one slight problem. The "unsinkable ballast" was in the form of airtight compartments. From the communications with the skipper in the hours before he and the others on board died it was established she was taking on water. It was probably the result of a small leaks of water in and air out. Positive buoyancy in the form of foam is the only way to guarantee "unsinkable". Malu Sara did not have sufficient foam to remain afloat. Any other system is susceptible to the smallest imperfection/crack let alone a non finished penetration to a bulkhead. I had a Southwind longboat for a number of years. I believed this boat to be unsinkable. I ventured far and wide in the Torres Straits and only discovered it could sink when I left it at the CYS pontoon in Cairns overnight. Southwinds will sink, the buoyance being enough for the hull and not the added weight of a Honda90 ,two marine batteries, fishing gear, safety equipment, bow rails. boarding step etc etc. Malu Sara was about 6 metres from memory. Titanic, slightly larger.

Cheers

Bottman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe lagoon will start putting prop strippers on all their boats now to make them unsinkable.?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Malu sara incident is a classic "swiss Cheese" model of disaster. There were mistakes after mistakes that lead to the loss of life. Inquest makes for informative reading.

 

 

 

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/86797/cif-malu-sara-vessel-20090212.pdf

wow

how did the government get itself to that point, takes a quote of half of the max without asking questions, believes everything the boat builder says with no tests..WTF?

I wonder what Mr Radke is up to now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So......Anyone know where the Lagoon is ?

 

Has it sunk ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the short of it. What a total cock up.

 

Findings of the inquest into the loss of the Malu Sara:

 

Summary


I have described the antecedents and circumstances of the fatal incident in
extensive detail. However an understanding of the sequence of events is best
achieved by considering a summary of the key occurrences.

The people lost when the Malu Sara sunk didn’t die because some
unforeseeable, freak accident swept them away before anything could be
done to save them. Rather, they died because several people dismally failed
to do their duty over many months.

The Department failed to consider the added risk of buying custom built
boats, and despite being alerted to its regional manager’s lack of training and
experience in procurement processes, it failed to adequately respond.

The boat’s builder failed to meet the most basic standards of workmanship,
and concealed his defective work with false certificates of compliance.

The hidden danger he created would have been detected and defused had
the regional manager checked the boat complied with the terms of the
contract for its supply, and ensured it had the necessary safety and
navigation equipment.

Instead, he rushed the defective vessels into service without ensuring those
who were to cross miles of open ocean in them had been trained in their use.

When he received graphic evidence the Malu Sara leaked, the regional
manager failed to address the problem, despite knowing that in two day’s time
the vessel would set out on a long and difficult passage.

When the vessel became lost in the fog, the duty officer failed to raise the
alarm before nightfall.

When the incident was reported to police and the national search and rescue
authority, the danger to the people on the Malu Sara was continually
trivialised, and reports of their worsening predicament were disbelieved,
ignored and even mocked.

The regional manager and other staff had flown home in helicopters, and
were dining with family and friends while two Commonwealth public servants
were struggling to get the Department’s vessel back to its base. The regional
manager failed to take charge of the incident, leaving a junior officer to
manage as best he could.

Those on the Malu Sara were searching in the dark for specks of land in a
roiling sea. They were struggling to pump out water that kept surging into the
cockpit of the boat. The tide, the waves and the wind swept them away from
safety. As the skipper, Wilfred Baira, continued to seek assistance over a
telephone that only sometimes worked, his calm manner, likely a masquerade
to minimise the fear of his passengers, was used as an excuse for inaction.

I am sure Mr Baira would have done all he could to get himself and his
passengers back to land. As more water leaked into the bilge and sloshed
around the cockpit, the vessel would have become increasingly difficult to
control. Undoubtedly, the older and experienced serviceman, Mr Harry, would
have provided resolute support. It is likely Ms Saub and Ms Enosa helped,
although the latter also had to calm and console a frightened and exhausted
child.

When no help came and the engines failed and water leaked into the
supposedly watertight bilge faster than it could be pumped out, it is likely the
boat capsized and soon sank.

The wretched dread of a mother seeking to cling to her terrified child as they
were dumped into the dark and wild sea is too terrible to contemplate.

Survival in the rough conditions would have been very difficult, and it is likely
the people passed quickly under the waves. However, at least one poor soul
struggled on in vain for more than a day. His hopes surely soared when
search aircraft came into view, only to be devastated as they disappeared,
before he too succumbed.

A totally avoidable disaster was complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok thanks

Back to the Lagoon, I guess it will be salvaged to find the problem, how deep is it where it sank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumour I heard was it sunk completely, and no one wants to spend the money to lift it up. Third hand or more info though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't count how many times I've seen props (still connected to the shaft) on the deck with a nest of line wrapped around it to the cleat. Thankfully they have all been shaft that have twisted like pretzel with little hull damage (the traditional stuffing boxes hold up quite well, the drip less, not so much). It always amazes me why if you don't race it an do lots of cruising why you would never have spurs on the shaft. In all my life, I see so many issues with sail drives, I can't imagine with the reliability they offer (low) what the benefit is on a cruising boat, they require more maintenance and when things happen like this, go south rather quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except in this case I assume they were on a passage and they have done a year of 2 of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My name Wes Garner, owner/captain of the S/V One World. Having finally settled with my insurance company, I am more at ease discussing the events of that evening. I would never wish what we went through upon anyone. Looking back on the event, it is terrifying. At the time, you just do what you have learned and practiced to survive. At the end of the day, we all got off the boat alive. I send a special thanks to my crew who remained calm and collected, the captain and crew of the Pan Topaz, and the RCC Australia.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the cause the water intrusion, it remains undetermined. I was awoken at 1 AM with water at the cabin sole level in the starboard hull. The water continued to rise at a rate of 15 to 20 cm an hour. We immediately closed all through hull fittings and inspected all accessible bilge areas. The aft engine compartment and forepeak locker were inspected as well, and, although they contained water which had entered through the bilge drains, there was no sign of hole or puncture.

 

For the previous 12 hours, we had been motor sailing into a 2 to 3 meter sea, with winds 20 to 25 kts, gusting to 35 kts. As the seas built, it made for an uncomfortable ride, yet nothing that vessel should not have been able to handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesnt sound fun at all!
Glad you can tell us the story and have had some settlement...
Now, would you buy another Lagoon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to hear more of what happened. Also curious why you would motor sail in 20-25kts of wind gusting to 35kts.? Meaning why not just sail.

As for the cause the water intrusion, it remains undetermined. I was awoken at 1 AM with water at the cabin sole level in the starboard hull. The water continued to rise at a rate of 15 to 20 cm an hour. We immediately closed all through hull fittings and inspected all accessible bilge areas. The aft engine compartment and forepeak locker were inspected as well, and, although they contained water which had entered through the bilge drains, there was no sign of hole or puncture.

 

For the previous 12 hours, we had been motor sailing into a 2 to 3 meter sea, with winds 20 to 25 kts, gusting to 35 kts. As the seas built, it made for an uncomfortable ride, yet nothing that vessel should not have been able to handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water intrusion from an indeterminate location, oh joy! Sounds like a terrifying experience, we're glad you're safe!

 

Unfortunately this doesn't make the Lagoon brand seem any more enticing considering the track record for their boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I buy another Lagoon, yes. The boat was a great fit for the needs of my family and my cruising style. Had my family been aboard and/or I had a month to choose my the timing of my passage, I would have waited for a better weather window. In this case, I was in "delivery" mode, with limited time allotment.

 

As we approached the Australian coast, I made the decision to motor as we made better headway than tacking back forth and getting pushed off course by the waves. If I had more time, I would have sailed, as pounding into that size of sea in a cat is miserable.

 

Also, the catamaran they show as an intro to this topic is not One World. As far as I know, my boat is at the bottom of the Tasman Sea or was torn to bits in the southern ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites