• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bob Perry

10 mill$ poweryacht capsize during launch in Anacortes

893 posts in this topic

When I first heard this on the news I figured it was a 30 Bayliner with 6 people on the fly bridge.

But noooooo. It's a new 90'er. all on board were rescued. Boat apparently just heeled over during launch and kept going.

 

Anyone know any more about this? Who is the builder? Designer?

 

My confidence in the new yacht would be a bit shaken if this were mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, that's not good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all I see in the new so far, no more details that what you've mentioned:

 

ANACORTES, Wash. - A multimillion-dollar yacht capsized overnight near Anacortes, dumping six people in the water. All were rescued by Good Samaritans and local police and fire crews.

Witnesses said the 90-foot yacht flipped as it was being launched at about 9 p.m. Sunday.

It was a chaotic scene as rescuers rushed in to pull the six people aboard out of the water. There were eyewitness reports that crews had to use axes to reach people near the engine compartment.

Two of the rescued people were taken to the hospital to be checked out, said Petty Officer Jordan Akiyama of the U.S. Coast Guard.

A team has been sent in to assess pollution from fuel aboard the vessel. So far, no sheen has been observed, but the yacht has been boomed off as a precaution.

An investigation is pending as to why the yacht sank, Akiyama said.

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Multimillion-dollar-yacht-sinks-near-Anacortes-6-rescued-259794431.html

 

Edit: Too slow, QBF already has video up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be heartbroken as they stated in the video, I'd be VERY pissed off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you design a boat that won't stay upright in dead calm water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was flat ass calm up here last night. This happened about an hour away from me.

I've been drawing little stability sketches here trying to figure out how that happened. I have no idea what the boat looks like but you';d have to have a really high VCG for this to happen. It's not making sense to me.

This builder has built quite a few big yachts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet they blame Gatekeeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was maybe a mistake putting the engines on the flybridge level...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very poor stability with nothing in her tanks. I would guess undetected flooding because someone left something open that should have been closed. Tiny heel angle and free surface pulled her over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tad:

How do you combine "nothing in the tanks" with a free surface problem? Are you saying the boat flooded? From the interview with the builder it did not sound like that..

 

This builder has built quite a few large yachts. There was no fuel leakage so I suspect the tanks were empty or almost empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people see that boat as "half empty"..... I see it as "half full" :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried to launch on top of a C&C 30?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Tad, I have a question for you: I don't know boats like this very well.

If a boat like this presumably needs full or near full fuel tanks for stability how the hell do you feel comfortable operating the boat when you are down t the last 10% of your fuel?

 

"perhaps a hydraulic trailer malfunction and no stability because she was still up in the air...."

That sounds plausible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very poor stability with nothing in her tanks. I would guess undetected flooding because someone left something open that should have been closed. Tiny heel angle and free surface pulled her over.

 

They had the best high water alarm in the industry...the dude in the bilge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Hatteras has a boat that is marginally stable with near-empty tanks. Some vessels add water as the fuel is consumed. They have really good water seperators too:

 

As a vessel consumes fuel, air displaces the fuel in its fuel tanks, thus reducing the

vessel’s stability. There is an added detrimental effect to stability when a tank is partially full

and the liquid inside can slosh around. The degree to which these factors affect ship stability are

dependent on ship design and the sea state. Some classes of ships are more susceptible to

stability problems than others and certain locations have historically high wave action. When

ship stability is threatened, ballast water can be pumped into a fuel tank to replace the consumed

fuel and to regain stability. Ballast water is discharged when it is no longer needed for

operational reasons or when preparing for fuel reintroduction.

To maintain safe stability, vessels without clean ballast systems may begin ballasting fuel

tanks when remaining ship’s fuel drops to approximately 70-80% of total capacity. These

vessels may continue to ballast fuel tanks until approximately 20% of ship’s fuel capacity

remains (the minimum percentage allowed by U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) ships).1 Therefore, by

the end of a voyage, as much as 80% of the fuel tanks’ contents could be seawater.

Procedures have been established for both ballasting and deballasting to minimize the

concentration of fuel in the dirty ballast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just talked to Jim Bett's son in law in Anacortes. He said they "let some air out on one side and the boat started to tip. It rested on it's stabilizer and then just kept going."

That sounds close to Tad's theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love a good keel.

...getting it installed befor the launch is another matter :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vasa (or Wasa)[1] is a Swedish warship built 1626-1628. The ship foundered and sank after sailing about 1,300 meters (1,400 yd) into her maiden voyage on 10 August 1628. She fell into obscurity after most of her valuable bronze cannons were salvaged in the 17th century. After she was located again in the late 1950s in a busy shipping lane just outside the Stockholm harbor, she was salvaged with a largely intact hull in 1961. She was housed in a temporary museum called Wasavarvet ("The Wasa Shipyard") until 1987 and then moved to the Vasa Museum in Stockholm. The ship is one of Sweden's most popular tourist attractions and has been seen by over 29 million visitors since 1961.[2]Vasa has since her recovery become a widely recognized symbol of the Swedish "great power period". She is today also a de facto standard in the media and among Swedes for evaluating the historical importance of shipwrecks.

Vasa was built top-heavy and had insufficient ballast. Despite an obvious lack of stability in port, she was allowed to set sail and foundered only a few minutes after she first encountered a wind stronger than a breeze. The impulsive move to set sail was the result of a combination of factors: Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus, who was leading the army on the continent on the date of her maiden voyage, was impatient to see her join the Baltic fleet in the Thirty Years' War; at the same time, the king's subordinates lacked the political courage to discuss the ship's structural problems frankly or to have the maiden voyage postponed. An inquiry was organized by the Swedish privy council to find personal responsibility for the disaster, but in the end no one was punished for the fiasco*.

During the 1961 recovery, thousands of artifacts and the remains of at least 15 people were found in and around the hull of the Vasa by marine archaeologists. Among the many items found were clothing, weapons, cannons, tools, coins, cutlery, food, drink and six of the ten sails. The artifacts and the ship herself have provided historians with invaluable insight into details of naval warfare, shipbuilding techniques and everyday life in early 17th-century Sweden. Vasa was intended to express the expansionist aspirations of Sweden and to glorify king Gustavus Adolphus. No expense was spared in decorating and equipping the Vasa, which was also one of the largest and most heavily armed warships of its time.

 

* in other news, NASA fails to study this and duplicates this feat centuries later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy says we can have one too!

 

 

 

Boat name is Baden, there are lots of pictures at the Northern Marine facebook page

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here she is on the trailer just before launch

 

attachicon.gifNorthernmarine90.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Witnesses said the 90-foot yacht flipped as it was being launched at about 9 p.m. Sunday.

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Multimillion-dollar-yacht-sinks-near-Anacortes-6-rescued-259794431.html

"launched at about 9 p.m. Sunday"? That's a very odd time to launch a boat.

High tide

 

So exactly how many levels/meters can you go up from the waterline and be okay? Maybe we just found out...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'VASA' was the pride of the Swedish Navy, until it sank upon launching. Here is a clip about their stability testing at the time.

 

WHOSE FAULT WAS IT?

Vice Admiral Klas Fleming, partly. He had been present before the ship sailed, when the captain demonstrated how crank the ship was by having 30 men run back and forth across the upper deck. On their third pass, the ship was ready to capsize at the quay. The admiral was heard to say that he wished the king were there.

http://www.vasamuseet.se/en/The-Ship/The-sinking/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.marineinsight.com/misc/marine-safety/top-10-boat-and-ship-launch-failure-videos/

 

I have a vague recollection of an ornate French, Spanish or English 15th,16th or 17th Century ship that went straight to the bottom when launched.

Danish/Swedish. Vara ????(Vasa) Left side built to Danish foot, Right side built to Swedish foot. Ecumenical colaboration. Being mightiest, extra gun decks were added "up" Flipped and sank 1000 meters from the dock?

 

Wooden Boat 2012 or 2013 era

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need no stinkin GHS program to tell just by that first photo this is one top heavy mother. Positive Stability must be an option that this owner didn't order.

 

Thanks for this thread because I've just been straining my brain this morning to CG stability conditions for a 50' 49 passenger catamaran and needed a good example to inspire me to me through in my work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy says we can have one too!

 

 

 

Boat name is Baden, there are lots of pictures at the Northern Marine facebook page

 

They certainly didn't design much hull below the waterline on this vessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here she is on the trailer just before launch

 

attachicon.gifNorthernmarine90.jpg

YIKES! That boat looks like it will roll right over. What was the designer thinking?!

 

Guy says we can have one too!

 

 

 

Boat name is Baden, there are lots of pictures at the Northern Marine facebook page

Honestly, that looks ridiculously top heavy - in this video, they say they'll be there to film the launch - wonder if they did?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.marineinsight.com/misc/marine-safety/top-10-boat-and-ship-launch-failure-videos/

I have a vague recollection of an ornate French, Spanish or English 15th,16th or 17th Century ship that went straight to the bottom when launched.

Danish/Swedish. Vara ????(Vasa) Left side built to Danish foot, Right side built to Swedish foot. Ecumenical colaboration. Being mightiest, extra gun decks were added "up" Flipped and sank 1000 meters from the dock?

 

Wooden Boat 2012 or 2013 era

Description sounds right. But Vasa sank on her maiden voyage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here she is on the trailer just before launch

 

attachicon.gifNorthernmarine90.jpg

YIKES! That boat looks like it will roll right over. What was the designer thinking?!

 

>Guy says we can have one too!

 

 

 

Boat name is Baden, there are lots of pictures at the Northern Marine facebook page

Honestly, that looks ridiculously top heavy - in this video, they say they'll be there to film the launch - wonder if they did?

 

 

Perhaps granite counter tops were a bad choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boat in question *could have* many tons of ballast. Likely not, but car carrier ships look way top heavy too and don't capsize for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! 1:52 min of the vid....is it the lense making it look that narrow at the waterline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if this accident had similarities to the Italian cruise ship that grounded and then capsized a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

http://www.marineinsight.com/misc/marine-safety/top-10-boat-and-ship-launch-failure-videos/

I have a vague recollection of an ornate French, Spanish or English 15th,16th or 17th Century ship that went straight to the bottom when launched.

Danish/Swedish. Vara ????(Vasa) Left side built to Danish foot, Right side built to Swedish foot. Ecumenical colaboration. Being mightiest, extra gun decks were added "up" Flipped and sank 1000 meters from the dock?

 

Wooden Boat 2012 or 2013 era

Description sounds right. But Vasa sank on her maiden voyage.

I cued in on "Ornate" and "15,16,17 th century" and Vasa came to mind. There certainly could be (or are) other launchings from that time frame and continent where the outcome was sub optimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! 1:52 min of the vid....is it the lense making it look that narrow at the waterline?

Baden_bow.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proa:

Time of launch was most probably a tide related issue to get deep water on the ramp.

 

I know so little about boats like this but when I look at that boat it does not look right to my eye either. My wild ass guess is that the VCG of that boat with almost empty tanks would be about right through those low hull ports. Wonder if they were all closed. VCG could be as high as that rub rail.

 

Where's Jose? This is his kind of boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Ok.

 

Without knowing the facts I can only surmise that it was a case of piling stuff on (CG too high). I think the mold for this boat started out being for a shorter boat and was lengthened to 86ft perhaps without widening it. These hulls are shallower than a true fishing boat hull. So combined with a lot of superstructure up high and perhaps fitted out with heavy furnishings stability was probably iffy to begin with. Any slack tanks would create problems via free surface if the trailer hydraulics failed during launch as Tad said. I do not know who designed the original lines for the mold. I do not know if the current owners of Northern Marine had a qualified engineer or Naval Architect involved. The previous owners of the company did. I do know the stylist, I won't call him a designer, responsible for the profile and arrangement.

When we build similar yachts we use our fish boat molds, or one of our heavier displacement hull molds, or design a new hull if the boat will have a steel hull. Ours are stable with empty tanks. Long range yachts are useless and dangerous IMO if you can't run the tanks down without threatening the boat's stability. We generally have ballast tanks in our hulls but they are used to adjust trim as fuel is burned off.

 

Edit: With 6 Naval Archtects on staff we take stability very seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boat in question *could have* many tons of ballast. Likely not, but car carrier ships look way top heavy too and don't capsize for the most part.

 

072406_cougar_ace.jpg

Singapore flagged vessel Cougar Ace, a 654 foot car carrier

 

cougarace.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm......launching on Sunday night might have been a big factor as it would be just after the lunar/tide cycle and highs & lows to almost an extreme if they had to work with it; it happens all the time with big yachts. But it's odd that it's Northern Marine as builder having a problem like this. They aren't new at this - not a flaky one-off build for example. I believe there is a well known and noted racing sailor that has a Northern too for his cruising yacht. He'd understand what went into it not just worrying about the carpets & drapes like a lot of power yacht buyers.

 

There's something wrong here and I guess we'll find that out at one point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to the Wasa Museum in Stockholm, it is well worth a visit

 

http://www.vasamuseet.se/en/

 

Pretty amazing how political pressure, face-saving by subordinates, and even a blue-ribbon panel investigation (which finds the cause, but doesn't do much because too many important people were involved) were part of the landscape 400 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was the wrap up workshop class of TrawlerFest this last weekend in Anacortes.

 

"How Not to Launch Your New Trawler"

 

post-29220-0-41616700-1400526586_thumb.jpg
post-29220-0-19067700-1400526580_thumb.jpg

 

post-29220-0-19067700-1400526580_thumb.jpg

post-29220-0-41616700-1400526586_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 mill POS. Should have named it the Turtle. Why in the fuck would you want to pile on deck after deck on that shallow hull. Why in the fuck would any yacht owner want to worry about the fuel level ever. You would think that the insurance world would stop that shit in its tracks. My bet is that thing didn't conform to any yacht engineering standards. Shit that thing would blow over sitting on jack stands in the yard.

 

You can't fix stupid but Darwin can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very interesting. Here is the more specific url:

 

http://yachtcaptainblog.com/2014/05/yacht-baden-blood-baron-northern-marine-launch-disaster/

 

Before this transition occurred I had RODDAN ENGINEERING complete a stability study in 2013. This is attached to his post and I encourage you to read it.

 

In fact, on September 16, 2013 I informed the shipyard manager that I had some grave concerns about the dolly system used to move the ship. I conveyed that I firmly believed another system or method of transport would be needed to safely launch (Blood Baron) Baden.

 

Would love to see that stability study?

 

The implication here is that the fault is in the launching method/system which somehow allowed the boat to tip too far. But how far was too far? Would the same thing happen rolling in heavy swell? If it was a launch accident, it might very well have saved lives from a worse outcome at sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here she is on the trailer just before launch

 

attachicon.gifNorthernmarine90.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Witnesses said the 90-foot yacht flipped as it was being launched at about 9 p.m. Sunday.

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Multimillion-dollar-yacht-sinks-near-Anacortes-6-rescued-259794431.html

"launched at about 9 p.m. Sunday"? That's a very odd time to launch a boat.

High tide

Looks like they added one too many layers on the wedding cake....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh. Looks like the feces are going to meet the rotary ventilation device over this one. A lot of finger pointing and dusting off their lawyers for certain.

 

I hope that no one got seriously injured but this will be entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing about power boat design, but it looks to have very little hull below waterline. Here is a pic of Nordhavn's same size expedition boat. Even it has a lot less going on than a sailboat, but looks a lot more substantial than the boat that rolled,

post-27422-0-07946000-1400528417_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had nothing to do with it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Very interesting. Here is the more specific url:

 

http://yachtcaptainblog.com/2014/05/yacht-baden-blood-baron-northern-marine-launch-disaster/

 

>Before this transition occurred I had RODDAN ENGINEERING complete a stability study in 2013. This is attached to his post and I encourage you to read it.

 

In fact, on September 16, 2013 I informed the shipyard manager that I had some grave concerns about the dolly system used to move the ship. I conveyed that I firmly believed another system or method of transport would be needed to safely launch (Blood Baron) Baden.

 

Would love to see that stability study?

 

The implication here is that the fault is in the launching method/system which somehow allowed the boat to tip too far. But how far was too far? Would the same thing happen rolling in heavy swell? If it was a launch accident, it might very well have saved lives from a worse outcome at sea.

 

I'd like to see the stability study as well but I don't think anybody but lawyers will see it for a while.

 

If the boat did not have all of its ballast in place, which is usual as some is reserved for trim ballast, and the tanks were slack it could very well be that if the trailer collapsed it could send the boat over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently bow bulbs are a thing?

 

What? You don't have one? Yes, when designed correctly a bulb will reduce wave making resistance quite a bit resulting in better fuel economy and it will reduce pitching for a more comfortable ride. They don't work very well for sailboats because of heeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently bow bulbs are a thing?

 

What? You don't have one? Yes, when designed correctly a bulb will reduce wave making resistance quite a bit resulting in better fuel economy and it will reduce pitching for a more comfortable ride. They don't work very well for sailboats because of heeling.

What about a canting bow bulb. You heard it here first!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently bow bulbs are a thing?

 

What? You don't have one? Yes, when designed correctly a bulb will reduce wave making resistance quite a bit resulting in better fuel economy and it will reduce pitching for a more comfortable ride. They don't work very well for sailboats because of heeling.

 

Australian multihull designer, Lock Crowther used bow bulbs for a short time on his catamarans. I don't think he used them for long.

 

http://www.multihulldynamics.com/news_article.asp?articleID=81

post-106106-0-69895500-1400531469_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expedition/long range yachts like the Northern or Nordhaven and the ilk have been doing bulbous bows forever. It's a proven technology in deep sea ships so why not? I find them not the prettiest feature but for function - yes.

 

It's pure speculation at this point but looking at the captain's blog and the flat tires it might have been a factor I suppose - I wasn't there. However, being involved with new launches it's always a hectic/stressful event and high tide was at around 2200 hrs. If they were launching on that trailer there would have been a time constraint as well. With the stress to get it done it just went pear shaped because of it. I've been there and have the sweaty t-shirt to prove it.

 

And again it's still speculation on my part but I can see it happening. Similar like that the Travelift the collapsed on Vancouver Is. I know the yard well and surprised that happened. But shit does happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had nothing to do with it!!

 

Riiiiiiight...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with bulbous bows.

 

I say it's all Gatekeeper's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Hatteras has a boat that is marginally stable with near-empty tanks. Some vessels add water as the fuel is consumed. They have really good water seperators too:

 

As a vessel consumes fuel, air displaces the fuel in its fuel tanks, thus reducing the

vessel’s stability. There is an added detrimental effect to stability when a tank is partially full

and the liquid inside can slosh around. The degree to which these factors affect ship stability are

dependent on ship design and the sea state. Some classes of ships are more susceptible to

stability problems than others and certain locations have historically high wave action. When

ship stability is threatened, ballast water can be pumped into a fuel tank to replace the consumed

fuel and to regain stability. Ballast water is discharged when it is no longer needed for

operational reasons or when preparing for fuel reintroduction.

To maintain safe stability, vessels without clean ballast systems may begin ballasting fuel

tanks when remaining ship’s fuel drops to approximately 70-80% of total capacity. These

vessels may continue to ballast fuel tanks until approximately 20% of ship’s fuel capacity

remains (the minimum percentage allowed by U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) ships).1 Therefore, by

the end of a voyage, as much as 80% of the fuel tanks’ contents could be seawater.

Procedures have been established for both ballasting and deballasting to minimize the

concentration of fuel in the dirty ballast.

 

Never heard of this before. Filling ballast tanks as fuel is burnt, sure. But never ballasting a slack fuel tank.

 

Apart from the obvious problem, how do you deballast? Need a damn good ODME and oil/water interface detection stuff. Filling in the ORB would be interesting too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least one local yard and many around the world launch stuff that size and a lot bigger on sideways slipways - they don't roll over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently bow bulbs are a thing?

 

What? You don't have one? Yes, when designed correctly a bulb will reduce wave making resistance quite a bit resulting in better fuel economy and it will reduce pitching for a more comfortable ride. They don't work very well for sailboats because of heeling.

 

They work in a very narrow speed range - they are a "steady state" kind of feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sinking was barely 30 feet away from this relatively "slow" looking boat. ;)

 

 

post-29220-0-16414400-1400538390_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

The boat in question *could have* many tons of ballast. Likely not, but car carrier ships look way top heavy too and don't capsize for the most part.

072406_cougar_ace.jpg

Singapore flagged vessel Cougar Ace, a 654 foot car carrier[/size]

 

cougarace.jpg[/size]

 

In fairness, that was a result of poorly planned ballast water exchange (BWE), resulting in an angle of loll.

 

http://www.sjofartsverket.se/pages/10806/15-6-2.pdf

 

Any ship that is operated with insufficient stability will capsize, regardless of design, so it wasn't the fact that it was a car carrier that caused the capsize.

 

See here of how angles of loll go bad:

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoBF9BPc1PM&sns=tw

 

 

Note here that it was a shift in cargo; also possible due to wind/wave action.

 

All comes down to metacentric height.

 

 

As a side note, this is where I disagree with BWE. The idea is sound: ships pick up animals in the ballast water (e.g. shrimps, crabs, and tigers) in port A and deposit them in port B, sometimes with deleterious effects on the local ecosystem. However, it has the unintended consequence of being quite dangerous and making ships fall over. At worst, a ship lost is worse than the effects of moving shrimp around, but I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They only had 120 gallons of fuel aboard and likely, no ballast. I would assume that they were concerned about too much weight on the launching assembly and would minimize the weight. 120 gallons wouldn't even have really made a difference with regard to free surface.

 

The KIRO news video interviewed the builder who stated that they saw the list during the launch, stopped everything and then proceeded when they thought everything was okay. That makes me believe that it wasn't the launching device unless it permitted enough list to cause the GM to go negative given that probably all of the tanks were empty.

 

There were people in the engine room trying to adjust ballast, perhaps even during the launch. A classic mistake can be to move too much weight to the 'high' side thinking you were going to bring it back level and then having it be too much or having free surface take over. I wonder if the capsize was in the opposite direction to the original list....

 

I'm thinking it was the lack of enough (any?) ballast and fuel that resulted in an unstable boat. That would make it the fault of the builder for not ensuring it was properly prepped for launching. As an aside, all these 'expedition trawler' types look pretty unstable to me but presumably the math works in the real world. I say, 'presumably'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australian multihull designer, Lock Crowther used bow bulbs for a short time on his catamarans. I don't think he used them for long.

 

http://www.multihulldynamics.com/news_article.asp?articleID=81

Lock stop using them because he died. Typically bulbs are used on medium-high speed powercats as a way to get buoyancy fwd without sacrificing a fine entry. Google semi-swath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Australian multihull designer, Lock Crowther used bow bulbs for a short time on his catamarans. I don't think he used them for long.

 

http://www.multihulldynamics.com/news_article.asp?articleID=81

Lock stop using them because he died. Typically bulbs are used on medium-high speed powercats as a way to get buoyancy fwd without sacrificing a fine entry. Google semi-swath

 

Thanks for the correction. I thought Lock stopped using them before he passed away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may be overthinking this. It sure as hell has nothing to do with the bulbous bow. Why are we talking about that?

It has nothing to do with wind and waves. There were none.

And you don't pump water into fuel tanks on yachts for ballasting. You may wish you did but it's not done.

I think they may need to look at the physics in the way it was being launched. Jose has an interesting theory on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a whole set of regulations about how good the water separator has to be for discharging the water. I have seen one of the units that goes in the engine feed line and it was about the size of a washing machine. It used centrifugal force to spin the water out. I think it was on a diesel sub if memory serves.

 

 

IIRC Hatteras has a boat that is marginally stable with near-empty tanks. Some vessels add water as the fuel is consumed. They have really good water seperators too:

As a vessel consumes fuel, air displaces the fuel in its fuel tanks, thus reducing the
vessel’s stability. There is an added detrimental effect to stability when a tank is partially full
and the liquid inside can slosh around. The degree to which these factors affect ship stability are
dependent on ship design and the sea state. Some classes of ships are more susceptible to
stability problems than others and certain locations have historically high wave action. When
ship stability is threatened, ballast water can be pumped into a fuel tank to replace the consumed
fuel and to regain stability. Ballast water is discharged when it is no longer needed for
operational reasons or when preparing for fuel reintroduction.
To maintain safe stability, vessels without clean ballast systems may begin ballasting fuel
tanks when remaining ship’s fuel drops to approximately 70-80% of total capacity. These
vessels may continue to ballast fuel tanks until approximately 20% of ship’s fuel capacity
remains (the minimum percentage allowed by U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) ships).1 Therefore, by
the end of a voyage, as much as 80% of the fuel tanks’ contents could be seawater.
Procedures have been established for both ballasting and deballasting to minimize the
concentration of fuel in the dirty ballast.



Never heard of this before. Filling ballast tanks as fuel is burnt, sure. But never ballasting a slack fuel tank.

Apart from the obvious problem, how do you deballast? Need a damn good ODME and oil/water interface detection stuff. Filling in the ORB would be interesting too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They REALLY wish they did at this point :lol:

 

We may be overthinking this. It sure as hell has nothing to do with the bulbous bow. Why are we talking about that?

It has nothing to do with wind and waves. There were none.

And you don't pump water into fuel tanks on yachts for ballasting. You may wish you did but it's not done.

This is a boat unstable by design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based only on the information and links in this thread, I would speculate that this was the result of a problem with the launch calculations – either not done or not followed (as the former captain claimed) or conditions different than the calculations, etc., or some combination.

 

In particular, assuming the boat was launched by driving the “trailer” (seen in some of the pics) down a ramp, the grounding force (i.e. vertical force on the bottom of the vessel) acts to reduce the stability of the vessel during launch. (Note that the reaction to grounding is the same as launch/dry docking, only the progression is reversed.) In other words, the stability of a vessel that is partially supported by buoyant forces and partially supported by contact forces has reduced stability compared to one that is entirely supported by either type alone. So during the launch, the stern is deeper and floats first removing the transverse support of that wide trailer section and leaving the bow still on the "ground force" of the narrow trailer there.

 

There are a couple ways to look at this force, namely as a buoyant force acting up through the contact point, or as a weight removed from the contact point. Obviously the two methods should get the same answer, but sometimes the math is easier with one method or one method is simply preferred by the analyst. Consider the removed weight method. It shouldn’t be too difficult for a sailor, as some of you claim to be, to visualize how removing weight from the keel reduces the stability.

 

To put it into numbers, let the grounding force be P and the total weight be W, then the removal of the “weight” of P from the keel causes a virtual rise in the center of gravity by P/(W-P). So for example, if the grounding force is 10% of W, then the CG will rise 11%. A rise in CG results in a corresponding decrease in GM. Combine this with the reduced waterplane (not yet free floating, so both sinkage and trim effects), throw in some slack tanks and their free surface, and this apparently added up to negative stability during launch.

 

However, the boat could (and probably does) have perfectly adequate stability in operation even though there was this accident during launch – which shouldn’t have happened, just isn’t indicative of the operational stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based only on the information and links in this thread, I would speculate that this was the result of a problem with the launch calculations – either not done or not followed (as the former captain claimed) or conditions different than the calculations, etc., or some combination.

 

In particular, assuming the boat was launched by driving the “trailer” (seen in some of the pics) down a ramp, the grounding force (i.e. vertical force on the bottom of the vessel) acts to reduce the stability of the vessel during launch. (Note that the reaction to grounding is the same as launch/dry docking, only the progression is reversed.) In other words, the stability of a vessel that is partially supported by buoyant forces and partially supported by contact forces has reduced stability compared to one that is entirely supported by either type alone. So during the launch, the stern is deeper and floats first removing the transverse support of that wide trailer section and leaving the bow still on the "ground force" of the narrow trailer there.

 

There are a couple ways to look at this force, namely as a buoyant force acting up through the contact point, or as a weight removed from the contact point. Obviously the two methods should get the same answer, but sometimes the math is easier with one method or one method is simply preferred by the analyst. Consider the removed weight method. It shouldn’t be too difficult for a sailor, as some of you claim to be, to visualize how removing weight from the keel reduces the stability.

 

To put it into numbers, let the grounding force be P and the total weight be W, then the removal of the “weight” of P from the keel causes a virtual rise in the center of gravity by P/(W-P). So for example, if the grounding force is 10% of W, then the CG will rise 11%. A rise in CG results in a corresponding decrease in GM. Combine this with the reduced waterplane (not yet free floating, so both sinkage and trim effects), throw in some slack tanks and their free surface, and this apparently added up to negative stability during launch.

 

However, the boat could (and probably does) have perfectly adequate stability in operation even though there was this accident during launch – which shouldn’t have happened, just isn’t indicative of the operational stability.

Okay. I'll put my money on this explanation..... (but. somebody. shoulda. knowed--jus sayin')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry's explanation sounds right to me. Not enough boat in the water to provide stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, perhaps, launching off a travel lift may have been a better choice. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, perhaps, launching off a travel lift may have been a better choice. ?

It couldn't possibly have been a worse choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think know the owners will get their money back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a better designer may have been a better choice? The theory of it lacking stability with only the stern in the water begs the question "what would happen if it stuck its nose out of a tall wave"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not crane launch, there must be a crane big enough in Anacortes area.

Is the launch fee at the boat ramp for a 90ft'r the same as a fishing skif?

A whole lotta nice work wasted with the finish line in sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Jerry's explanation too. Might have been a number of factors that this went south but that must be a lot of it. A boat like that is supposed to float not sit on a trailer. And in my experience with power yachts a little smaller of than that the tanks are dry except running up systems: water and fuel so I wouldn't be surprised that it only had 120 gals. of fuel in it. I've done that from the deck of a ship to the water. Never a thought it's too unstable because it run basically dry. It doesn't happen.

 

There might be other factors but we will find out from the insurance companies and the lawyers at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jose had a good take on it. Think of an old IOR boat running hard at hull speed downwind balanced on the bow and the stern with a big hole in the middle where most of the boat is." You know what happens next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think LeeJerry has it right. The IOR boat analogy is a simpler way of putting it. Not having a cradle to support the bow may have been a costly mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think LeeJerry has it right. The IOR boat analogy is a simpler way of putting it. Not having a cradle to support the bow may have been a costly mistake.

 

How do we know they didn't launch bow first? Or maybe it would have worked better if they had?

 

Hard to believe that stern lifted much weight before it would have been submerged. Then again, with the limited support at the bow, it probably wouldn't take much to make it unstable.

 

There has to be video of the launch somewhere... What is taking so long to see it?

 

P.S. Here's a vid of a smaller Northern Marine 58 being launched stern first at the same ramp?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it really great that we can start the day with a disaster, kick it about and near the end of the day all be a little bit smarter?

I can use smarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this launching theory. On a much smaller scale I have seen this in action with canoes and kayaks. one it myself a few times. Stern is supported by water, bow on land. Crew gets in and everything is fine. But as soon as they push back just a little, over they go! Suddenly there isn't enough boat in the water and the part on land doesn't offer an stability (a fine bow). Did this the first time I got in a real sea kayak. It was a cold and wet shock. I like it, I think you are onto something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here she is on the trailer just before launch

 

attachicon.gifNorthernmarine90.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Witnesses said the 90-foot yacht flipped as it was being launched at about 9 p.m. Sunday.

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Multimillion-dollar-yacht-sinks-near-Anacortes-6-rescued-259794431.html

"launched at about 9 p.m. Sunday"? That's a very odd time to launch a boat.
High tide
Looks like they added one too many lawyers on the wedding cake....
That's what they've got on thier hands now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jose had a good take on it. Think of an old IOR boat running hard at hull speed downwind balanced on the bow and the stern with a big hole in the middle where most of the boat is." You know what happens next.

There must be something wrong with me, that makes perfect sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldnt read all the posts so I hope this wasnt covered, but according to my FB sailing friends in Anacortes someone they know personally (i know his name, but I don't know if that is appropriate to post here) had to be rescued from the engine room by chopping thru the hull with an axe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://q13fox.com/2014/05/19/uh-oh-85-foot-yacht-capsizes-in-anacortes/#axzz32ECW4kmF

pi2.png


http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Multimillion-dollar-yacht-sinks-near-Anacortes-6-rescued-259794431.html

One of the crew members, Wade Benda, said he still doesn't know what went wrong, but he's glad he got out alive.

"To see it all in the water like that it's kind of tough," he said.

Benda, the yacht's mechanic, is part of the team that spent two and a half years building the multi-million dollar vessel.
.
The yacht rolled without warning, leaving Benda and four other crew members trapped inside.

"I'm relieved that I'm here on the ground and I just want to thank the good Lord above that, I'm here it was just a scary moment," Benda said.

Benda said he thinks the boat's starboard stabilizer hit some rocks when it initially rolled near the boat ramp. He said they tried to "thrust" the boat back into deeper water. Shortly after that they got into deeper trouble

"We just braced ourselves," Benda said. "I have no idea what went wrong."


140519_boat_big.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Jerry....launching calculations nails it for me, big issues can occur.

 

The other thing to remember, Northern is NOT the same yard as it was 10 years ago, that one went Bankrupt and the assets went to a new company with new financing, not a shell game like some other boat builders bankruptcies, it is a totally new company

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New yacht capsizes upon launch in Anacortes
http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/new-yacht-capsizes-upon-launch-in-anacortes/article_29a51958-df78-11e3-8ec7-001a4bcf887a.html

... capsized Sunday night immediately after being launched near 30th Street.
[...]
Police Capt. Lou D’Amelio said the boat was getting launched for the first time around 9 p.m. Sunday when it began to roll onto its side in shallow water. As it began to roll, several people went into the engine room to adjust ballast.

It continued to roll, and the engine room began to flood. Most of the workers on board were easily rescued, but one man was trapped inside.

Anacortes officer and Navy veteran Scott Ray used an ax to chop out a port hole and rescue the man, D’Amelio said. The man was treated for minor cuts and scrapes from being pulled through the port hole.
[...]
Wes Fridell, representative of New World Yacht Builders, d.b.a. Northern Marine, was there during the launch and said the yacht had only 120 gallons of diesel in the tank, a small amount for the first launch. It is built to hold about 11,000 gallons, he said.

He described watching the event unfold as “sickening” and something he’d never seen happen before.

“It just at one point lurched at its cradle. We don’t know exactly why at this point because the cradle had been inspected and is sound. And then we reinspected everything before we proceeded. … Once it floated in the water, it went over. So we do not know the cause at this point,” he said Monday.

The multimillion-dollar yacht had been under construction for 2 1/2 years. The fiberglass hull may be only minimally damaged or easily repaired, Fridell said. “But everything inside is toast — everything. Nothing’s made to be submerged in salt water.”

Marine salvors were planning to attempt to right the boat at high tide late Monday night, Fridell said.

He anticipated that straps would be put through holes on both sides of the boat and that a crane would be used to help slowly upright it at high tide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here she is on the trailer just before launch

 

attachicon.gifNorthernmarine90.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Witnesses said the 90-foot yacht flipped as it was being launched at about 9 p.m. Sunday.

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Multimillion-dollar-yacht-sinks-near-Anacortes-6-rescued-259794431.html

"launched at about 9 p.m. Sunday"? That's a very odd time to launch a boat.
High tide
Looks like they added one too many lawyers on the wedding cake....
That's what they've got on thier hands now.

Funny comment. Hey! If you're going to edit someone else's post at least make the change apparent. You know the standard strike through followed by the standard, "fixed that for ya!" or something more amusing. Some of my best friends are lawyers, I don't want them getting the wrong impression.

My insults are much worse and delivered in person... :mellow:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0