Sign in to follow this  
Grande Mastere Dreade

Showtime capsize on return trip

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Chimp too said:

Pulpit,

this attitude is exactly the reason the leisure marine industry is becoming uninsurable. Look at aeronautical and automotive, they have accident investigation branches with teeth that can investigate independently and have legal strength. The longer we avoid this and rely on insurance companies to do the right thing and let the industry learn from mistakes, the harder it will be when government bodies decide enough is enough and take control. If we can’t look after ourselves, that is bound to happen sooner rather than later.

 

Chimp,

Have you been into the fire water this afternoon ?

 

Mate the reason that we have problems getting insurance some times is any turkey can start up a business in the marine industry and repair boats with very little training at all and most owners aren’t willing to paid the dollars for properly train tradesman or just do the repairs themselves. Mate I’ve been told by many a barfly and the local club that I don’t hav3 a clue what I’m on about. Mean while bad at their real job doctor, Lawer, plumber ect if I question them, what the fuck do I know !!!!!

 

What you are saying is, let put some untrained AS staff member do a major investigation on something they know nothing about that is likely to cost the owner of Showtime Big dollars when their insurance tries to find a way out of paying them and then with their new found knowledge AS then talks to WS and then changes the rule and creates a new in-house job for their unskilled staff. 

 

You are on a winner not their mate. 

 

All  I can see is yet another nail in the ocean racing fleets and AS paying very big legal bills. This is just a way for AS to beat their own drum and say look at me in order to get more government funding. 

 

So mate, if you believe what you have said, then I have 2 bridges on Sydney Harbour to sell  you very cheap and LB has I nice little playhouse close by for sale as well.

 

This inquiry  is no good for our owners of Showtime or our sport and AS need to back off.

 

Pulpit

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

And you think we care about your view of World Sailing?

They are the governing authority, love them or hate them. They set the rules, and those rules cover keels as well, as you know.

Can you please list or provide references to the engineering standards that World Sailing has established WRT keel design & construction?

In addition can you please list or provide references to the engineering bodies or professional engineers who have certified these standards?

After all, you state that they set the rules.....

Because, if you can't, because there aren't any, World Sailing can go & piss up a rope, as they have no significant engineering knowledge to judge the adequacy of design of a kid's canoe let alone a highly stressed keel on a racing boat.

FKT

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, Australian Sailing has become a handy weapon to be used by ill intentioned individuals with agendas. 
In my own practical experience they are more likely to be an owner member’s worst enemy than a supportive governing body.   

There is zero evidence that Australian Sailing cares about owners, and compelling evidence they will allow our sporting principles to be relaxed in the face of  personal agendas. 
if I could give the owners of Showtime one piece of advice, it would be to run for the hills and direct any AS request to the lawyers.

I believe the chances of this being accorded a fair and reasonable process is near zero. A non legal  authority needs to do a much better job of showing a culture of integrity, that factual evidence is important and respected, and that baseless falsehoods are not acceptable replacements. 
 

 If the motives are indeed well intentioned  and it is believed an enquiry is needed or would be beneficial to the sport , the first thing that needs to happen is a review of the entity running the enquiry is undertaken to ensure their processes provide the required level of impartially and professionalism suited to the task.

Australian Sailing processes do not provide the required level. Simply put, they have no will or desire to determine the veracity of any evidence , ensuring lies and falsehoods are considered equal or could even be weighted more highly than the clinical cold hard facts.

Run Showtime, this reeks already. I’m happy to contribute to a Showtime warfund if this helps the owners, we need to start protecting ourselves and our sport from our ‘alleged’ national authority until they can demonstrate their processes can not be derailed or abused by ulterior motives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lydia said:

Private inquiries are never about learning that is not the point of them

you also have very naive view of world sailing

Ever had any direct involvement with World Sailing? I have and do on a regular basis. Ever told Stan Honey or Will Apold that the committees they chair are a waste of time? 
also, this is not a private Inquiry, it an inquiry by a Member National Authority of the world governing body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of any inquiry is not to point blame but to give recommendations to try and avoid a repeat of the incident if possible.

then again, I threw my tin foil hat away years ago. Maybe others should try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

The purpose of any inquiry is not to point blame but to give recommendations to try and avoid a repeat of the incident if possible.

then again, I threw my tin foil hat away years ago. Maybe others should try it.

Unfortinately there are now some very fashionable carbonfibre hats in circulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chimp too said:

Ever had any direct involvement with World Sailing? I have and do on a regular basis. Ever told Stan Honey or Will Apold that the committees they chair are a waste of time? 
also, this is not a private Inquiry, it an inquiry by a Member National Authority of the world governing body. 

Of course it is private inquiry

ffs

and one with no rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lydia said:

This is not “us” looking after ourselves

AS is not “us” and certainly not me

and sure as shit this will cost me money

This body has no legal standing no power that matters to conduct an inquiry

the idea that AS should conduct an inquiry before the statutory body is nowadays naive and unhelpful to everybody leaving aside the astonishing arrogance of it

and of course the rank and file sailors fund this stupidity

here is how this ends

” it is recommended that AS make yearly keel and bulb inspection by an authorised person mandatory and where a vessel has been aground that a further inspection take place before starting in any cat 1 or 2 race”

“ owners must provide a declaration that the vessel has not suffered a grounding or collision with a submerged object in the last 12 month period

 let’s fuck the owners some more and another 50 boats stop sailing offshore

so why should the National Safety Committee mandate a single safety requirement given the changes to legislation in each state

these people are simply putting the noose around the owners neck before the prosecution pulls the trap door lever

be smart mandate nothing so at least the owner has fighting chance

 

The only things AS should be reviewing are implications for SSSC training and safety equipment.

 

ie: shit within their purview!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Dunc

this all sounds like payback because someone at New beach road did not get told about the flinders race collision

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

And you think we care about your view of World Sailing?

They are the governing authority, love them or hate them. They set the rules, and those rules cover keels as well, as you know.

 

 

10 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Can you please list or provide references to the engineering standards that World Sailing has established WRT keel design & construction?

In addition can you please list or provide references to the engineering bodies or professional engineers who have certified these standards?

After all, you state that they set the rules.....

Because, if you can't, because there aren't any, World Sailing can go & piss up a rope, as they have no significant engineering knowledge to judge the adequacy of design of a kid's canoe let alone a highly stressed keel on a racing boat.

FKT

World Sailing is the Almighty, period, like it or not.

And you do your own homework if you are interested, and if you do that well then they might appoint you to one of their many committees.

I'll give you a hint though

OSR STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEW INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The aim of the World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations Structural Plan Review Scheme is to implement compliance with the requirements of World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations 3.03 - Hull Construction Standards (Scantlings). www.sailing.org/specialregs.

The objective of the scheme is for World Sailing together with World Sailing recognized notified bodies to provide certification to designers, builders and/or owners to show compliance with specific parts of the International Standard ISO 12215: Hull Construction -Scantlings specified within the scope below.

I am sorry, but the attitude of several notorious posters here, for whatever reasons, is not in the interest of the safety of our sport. 

FB aka FKU. :blink:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

 

World Sailing is the Almighty, period, like it or not.

And you do your own homework if you are interested, and if you do that well then they might appoint you to one of their many committees.

I'll give you a hint though

OSR STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEW INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The aim of the World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations Structural Plan Review Scheme is to implement compliance with the requirements of World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations 3.03 - Hull Construction Standards (Scantlings). www.sailing.org/specialregs.

The objective of the scheme is for World Sailing together with World Sailing recognized notified bodies to provide certification to designers, builders and/or owners to show compliance with specific parts of the International Standard ISO 12215: Hull Construction -Scantlings specified within the scope below.

I am sorry, but the attitude of several notorious posters here, for whatever reasons, is not in the interest of the safety of our sport. 

FB aka FKU. :blink:

 

So how is that supposedctovwork? Iyru has no expertise in duch matters. LR would probably engage however.

Do note rhat 12216 is a European standard. In trade that is the only place ehere nstionsl govt bodiesvpay attention ti it.

Im not going down iyru rabbithole ehile in psgr seat. How from practical stanfpoint would AS implement iso12216 plan review???!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fastyacht said:

???!!!

Foul language, Rule 69 applies to you!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

 

World Sailing is the Almighty, period, like it or not.

And you do your own homework if you are interested, and if you do that well then they might appoint you to one of their many committees.

I'll give you a hint though

OSR STRUCTURAL PLAN REVIEW INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The aim of the World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations Structural Plan Review Scheme is to implement compliance with the requirements of World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations 3.03 - Hull Construction Standards (Scantlings). www.sailing.org/specialregs.

The objective of the scheme is for World Sailing together with World Sailing recognized notified bodies to provide certification to designers, builders and/or owners to show compliance with specific parts of the International Standard ISO 12215: Hull Construction -Scantlings specified within the scope below.

I am sorry, but the attitude of several notorious posters here, for whatever reasons, is not in the interest of the safety of our sport. 

FB aka FKU. :blink:

 

Fiji,

You are right, WS is the almighty in our spor, like it or not. 

 

The problem we have here in Australia is AS is run by a bunch of drop kicks in management who are more self-centred on keeping their jobs and getting Olympic funding and medals. They don’t care about the average sailors that help fund them or small clubs. We can all tell you stories of how AS has shafted someone to help out other sailors with Olympic prospects or with money.  I’ve seen kids shafted by AS become one parent with money was feeling threatened because the other kid was better than their kid and a AS employee who posts here let it happen. 

 

So the Trust is just not here with AS and this is the problem.

 

Its a Olympic year and funding is high on AS’s agenda. What better way to try and show the government they are a important governing body of our sport by showing them that it’s about safety and they care.  How many other times has AS conducted a inquiry into a major delivery mishap that you know about. Not many. 

 

The best thing that they should look at is the safety at sea component of the rescue and not the Keel issue. 

 

Its time that AS pulled their heads in and listened and acted  to what the sailors want and need. 

 

Pulpit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

 

World Sailing is the Almighty, period, like it or not.

And you do your own homework if you are interested, and if you do that well then they might appoint you to one of their many committees.

So in summary, no, you can't show that they have any engineering expertise whatever, nor can you show any publicly available engineering standards WRT keel design & construction that WS have developed and insist be followed.

FWIW, as I'm a cruising sailor anyway, I couldn't care less what WS *or* AS pronounces. I *am* however interested in sound engineering practices. Which is why I use consulting engineers when my personal knowledge isn't adequate.

If the AS 'enquiry' isn't run by & the report if any written by such an engineer, preferably one with marine design expertise and experience, it won't be worth a pinch of shit.

We still don't know for certain what the mode of keel failure was though the betting is a stress failure where the vertical beam was welded to the top plate. If nobody knows exactly how it failed, just what in hell is an 'enquiry' actually going to elucidate?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

And you think we care about your view of World Sailing?

They are the governing authority, love them or hate them. They set the rules, and those rules cover keels as well, as you know.

 

World sailing is not and will never be the governing authority in australia

 we have a national scheme of legislation with a pesky thing called the primary safety obligation

the rest is just noise

and every time no accounts like Australian sailing have an inquiry and make recommendations that obligation gets harder and more costly to comply with usually for no reason or at least a reason that applies to two boats

it never ceases to amaze me that supposedly intelligent people go around thinking the sailing exists in some magic bubble and the real world never intrudes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

I bet someone has a drawing of the keel.....

Plenty of people gave a picture of the keel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lydia said:

Plenty of people gave a picture of the keel

Picture of the drawing, or of the actual keel construction, where?

Thank you...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lydia said:

Of course it is private inquiry

ffs

and one with no rules

Actually worse than that -  then fucked over by rules created under that cover of darkness let alone having any transparency, proper engagement and accountability.

That approach was very popular in Russia, Germany and Italy in the 1930's (Russia lasting over a generation), Chile and Argentina from the 70's to name a few.

All ended up catastrofucks, though they did have nice uniforms, logos and marching songs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lydia said:

it never ceases to amaze me that supposedly intelligent people go around thinking the sailing exists in some magic bubble and the real world never intrudes

Yes it is all good until someone starts throwing chairs...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Can you please list or provide references to the engineering standards that World Sailing has established WRT keel design & construction?

In addition can you please list or provide references to the engineering bodies or professional engineers who have certified these standards?

After all, you state that they set the rules.....

Because, if you can't, because there aren't any, World Sailing can go & piss up a rope, as they have no significant engineering knowledge to judge the adequacy of design of a kid's canoe let alone a highly stressed keel on a racing boat.

FKT

World Sailing establishes the Plan Review process by which racing yachts are required to meet the ISO 12215 structural standards which they were previously exempt from. This was overseen by the then Tech Manager Dr Jason Smithwick, previously of the Wolfson Unit and very highly respected. It was also done with the agreement of DNV, GL, RINA, ICNN who certified this standard. 
Currently this area is overseen by Hasso Hoffmeister of DNV-GL, one of the most highly respected people in the business, who also wrote the 24m plus race yacht structural rules for DNV and sits on the AC rule management team. 
 

want me to go on?

 

stop being so fucking paranoid.

1. AS have commissioned an inquiry, they are not doing it themselves.

2. The purpose of any inquiry is to establish facts and give recommendations, not point the blame.

3. Showtime was designed to comply with the WS plan review process and held the appropriate certification.

4. The modified keel design also had the same certification. Even though outside of the ISO environment (shock, horror!)

5. The report will be made public, unlike any insurance findings.

6. Any recommendations that might help prevent this happening again will be shared with WS so that if the rules need updating and/or helpful information can be shared throughout the world to help prevent a repeat.

7. It isn’t a conspiracy to wreck sailing and steal your children or their toys.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what has anything got to do with AS bullshit inquiry

you are talking about an entirely different thing  

like I said this ends with AS and most likely AMSA , MSQ or whoever requiring yearly inspection to boats that have already been built to the standard because this inquiry says it is a good idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lydia said:

Plenty of people gave a picture of the keel

as it was being built?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't expect an answer, I can hear lydia scream already.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chimp too said:

World Sailing establishes the Plan Review process by which racing yachts are required to meet the ISO 12215 structural standards which they were previously exempt from. This was overseen by the then Tech Manager Dr Jason Smithwick, previously of the Wolfson Unit and very highly respected. It was also done with the agreement of DNV, GL, RINA, ICNN who certified this standard. 
Currently this area is overseen by Hasso Hoffmeister of DNV-GL, one of the most highly respected people in the business, who also wrote the 24m plus race yacht structural rules for DNV and sits on the AC rule management team. 
 

want me to go on?

 

stop being so fucking paranoid.

1. AS have commissioned an inquiry, they are not doing it themselves.

2. The purpose of any inquiry is to establish facts and give recommendations, not point the blame.

3. Showtime was designed to comply with the WS plan review process and held the appropriate certification.

4. The modified keel design also had the same certification. Even though outside of the ISO environment (shock, horror!)

5. The report will be made public, unlike any insurance findings.

6. Any recommendations that might help prevent this happening again will be shared with WS so that if the rules need updating and/or helpful information can be shared throughout the world to help prevent a repeat.

7. It isn’t a conspiracy to wreck sailing and steal your children or their toys.

So in one sentence then, WS has a contract with DNV-GL for plan review?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chimp too said:

World Sailing establishes the Plan Review process by which racing yachts are required to meet the ISO 12215 structural standards which they were previously exempt from. This was overseen by the then Tech Manager Dr Jason Smithwick, previously of the Wolfson Unit and very highly respected. It was also done with the agreement of DNV, GL, RINA, ICNN who certified this standard. 
Currently this area is overseen by Hasso Hoffmeister of DNV-GL, one of the most highly respected people in the business, who also wrote the 24m plus race yacht structural rules for DNV and sits on the AC rule management team. 
 

want me to go on?

 

stop being so fucking paranoid.

1. AS have commissioned an inquiry, they are not doing it themselves.

2. The purpose of any inquiry is to establish facts and give recommendations, not point the blame.

3. Showtime was designed to comply with the WS plan review process and held the appropriate certification.

4. The modified keel design also had the same certification. Even though outside of the ISO environment (shock, horror!)

5. The report will be made public, unlike any insurance findings.

6. Any recommendations that might help prevent this happening again will be shared with WS so that if the rules need updating and/or helpful information can be shared throughout the world to help prevent a repeat.

7. It isn’t a conspiracy to wreck sailing and steal your children or their toys.

You are wasting keystrokes on these people mate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chimp too said:

 

4. The modified keel design also had the same certification. Even though outside of the ISO environment (shock, horror!)

 

So you're saying it was built and fell off outside the environment?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, lydia said:

Plenty of people gave a picture of the keel

But, no-one wants to share..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, doghouse said:

You are wasting keystrokes on these people mate.

You guys are talking about the making the standards.

The rest of us here are talking about Australian sailing doing something and not fucking it up and fucking over the people they are suppose to respesent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hitchhiker said:

But, no-one wants to share..................

It was an earlier page in the thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lydia said:

Ouch!

First tell me if there was an enquiry at all, or was that also on an earlier page of the thread?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJohnB said:

John Clark will be popping in soon.;)

Just finding his gumboots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lydia said:

You guys are talking about the making the standards.

The rest of us here are talking about Australian sailing doing something and not fucking it up and fucking over the people they are suppose to respesent

Nope, we are talking about finding out what happened to Showtime. The MNA has commissioned an inquiry as the event organiser decided not to. We are hoping this will mean we see a report and get to learn from it. I don’t give a fuck about AS and all the Aussie bickering and winging. I just want to see someone other than the insurers look into it, so we can learn

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

Nope

"have a World Sailing / ISAF building plan review certificate issued from a notified body recognized by World Sailing, unless higher classification has been obtained from a Classification Society recognised by World Sailing."

Digging around WS webiste I lost patience and did not find anywhere that they have a list of approved Class and "notified bodies" . For over 24 metres it looks that WS requires classification, period.

So from this thread it seems that there is some concern as to the efficacy and utility of AS. I know nothing of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

First tell me if there was an enquiry at all, or was that also on an earlier page of the thread?

 

It doesn’t look like AS did any investigation into the sinking of Hollywood Boulevard despite many / some of the circumstances being the same as the Showtime incident. That suggests that AS is not in the habit of doing these inquiries.

I’m a fan of well done inquiries. As someone interested in aviation I tend to read the NTSB and TSB reports. I prefer to learn from others mistakes. Not that I can’t make mistakes but I try to keep them original, especially if lives are at risk.

I think some of the reasons (an informed lawyers / transportation expert may wish to correct me – I’d welcome that) the NTSB does such a good job includes:

·         They can get the info / testimony even if you don’t really want to give it up;

·         Part of the way they can get info is that NTSB investigations are not to be used in litigation etc. “Section 701(e) of the FA Act and section 304(c) of the Safety Act preclude the use or admission into evidence of Board accident reports in any suit or action for damages arising from accidents”

So is AS in the habit of doing accident investigations? If not, then why now? If not, then how do they propose to assemble the skills, and process required?

Can they reliably get all the needed facts? I would think that requires some ability to compel and any issues of litigation and liability either being settled or explicitly unable to use info from the inquiry. It seems unrealistic to ask people to be forthcoming when the info provided either as provided or as manipulated by lawyers could put them in serious jeopardy.

If you have neither the established expertise to interpret information nor the ability to obtain all relevant information then the investigation will likely be flawed. In fact there would be a very good chance the recommendations would be worse than no recommendations while in the process having burned up money and time.

That just doesn’t seem sound practice but not really my field.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

I think we're all missing the point here.

 

AS has to do this to cover their arses. They were this close to having it fall off in the race. You know, that one with the highest safety standards.

The danger with doing something for optics is you may take something that doesn’t look great and turn it into something that looks really really bad.

Spending a bunch of time and money doing something really badly may end up shifting the focus from the incident to the organization that is making a cock up of something it probably shouldn’t be doing in the first place. If there are any liability or litigation issues it will be in someone’s interest to work hard at discrediting the AS investigation...it seems like AS might make it very easy for someone to make them look stupid.

Doesn’t sound like a smart PR plan...but I’m not from in town so just an outsiders observation

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KC375 said:

The danger with doing something for optics is you may take something that doesn’t look great and turn it into something that looks really really bad.

 

Spending a bunch of time and money doing something really badly may end up shifting the focus from the incident to the organization that is making a cock up of something it probably shouldn’t be doing in the first place. If there are any liability or litigation issues it will be in someone’s interest to work hard at discrediting the AS investigation...it seems like AS might make it very easy for someone to make them look stupid.

 

Doesn’t sound like a smart PR plan...but I’m not from in town so just an outsiders observation

 

Agreed.

 

As I said upthread - AS should stick to their knitting. Its fine to dictate and police safety standards for their events, but leave the analysis and legal implications to the experts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the WS Keel inspection form, they have actually found someone who will sign off on one of those!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lydia said:

It was an earlier page in the thread

I've been on this thread since day one with a very close interest. Just went back through the entire thread.  I cannot find one image of the keel in question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so under 24m you can build your keep at home and glue it on yourself?

Does AS only require hull data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Falls miles outside AMSA's scope of supply and state marine bodies won't step in without coroner's directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hitchhiker said:

I've been on this thread since day one with a very close interest. Just went back through the entire thread.  I cannot find one image of the keel in question.

This photo of the keel was taken by AS's accident investigation ROV at the bottom of the sea. The ROV is equipped with scanners which helped it locate the keel, but as AS  is so focused on Olympic sailing classes, no one at AS ever thought that it would be used offshore in deep enough water to require lighting.

 

Black_colour.jpg.fc1583e7f06ace379c1e7f3

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SCARECROW said:

Falls miles outside AMSA's scope of supply and state marine bodies won't step in without coroner's directions.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
8 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:
 

Given HB hit something hard ("sunfish") and tore a rudder out.  No question of structural failure as there was in Showtime's case so nothing to launch an enquiry about really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DickDastardly said:

Given HB hit something hard ("sunfish") and tore a rudder out.  No question of structural failure as there was in Showtime's case so nothing to launch an enquiry about really.

With our nanny state mentality and the well known fact that sunfish are out there hunting yachts over summer, there are only two possibilities of which way we should be heading.

1) Keels and rudders must be strengthen to withstand hitting a sunfish at full speed or

2) The sunfish will be protected and thus all yachts must have crumple zones or easy break away appendages to protect the sunfish from harm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of which I am told I should watch “ A Current Affair “ over the next few days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KC375 said:

So is AS in the habit of doing accident investigations? If not, then why now? If not, then how do they propose to assemble the skills, and process required?

Can they reliably get all the needed facts?

This is the bit where I *really* have difficulty.

Currently we know that the keel separated from the hull.

The keel is on the bottom and nobody has - AFAIK - recovered it.

The hull is floating about and nobody - AFAIK - has recovered it.

So just HOW IN HELL is anyone going to determine the failure mode? Given you've got neither of the broken bits to examine.

As we used to say when asked something really, really stupid - "Sorry my crystal ball is cloudy today"

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Yes it is all good until someone starts throwing chairs...

Amazing what old buzzards can get away with 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

This is the bit where I *really* have difficulty.

Currently we know that the keel separated from the hull.

The keel is on the bottom and nobody has - AFAIK - recovered it.

The hull is floating about and nobody - AFAIK - has recovered it.

So just HOW IN HELL is anyone going to determine the failure mode? Given you've got neither of the broken bits to examine.

As we used to say when asked something really, really stupid - "Sorry my crystal ball is cloudy today"

FKT

If you running a good inquiry the last thing you want to get in the way is the evidence 

and I have run the odd inquiry into much more important things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sailabout said:

so under 24m you can build your keep at home and glue it on yourself?

Does AS only require hull data?

Under 24m use ISO 12215 and get plan approval from any one of a number of WS recognised Notified Bodies (not just DNV-GL). Over 24m the only recognised standard until you get up to commercial vessels is the DNV-GL rule which Hasso wrote.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

 Currently we know that the keel separated from the hull.

 

Actually no, sorry to be pedantic but all the evidence says the keel separated from itself.

Rob woke hearing a metallic ‘Ping’ just before he was thrown across the boat from his windward bunk as they capsized.

While they made their plans to escape it was apparent to Rob that the inverted boat was holding air pressure in the hull, so the top plate of the keel can only have remained fully bolted to the yacht.  When the crew swam down out of the boat, they saw that the vertical part of the keel was missing, revealing that the keel had failed at the welded joint between the exposed vertical and the recessed horizontal part.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ncik said:

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".

Do you work for AS or are trying to get work with AS? Or have either created a EU zone like governance structure that trips over itself while just compromising every member constituent to lowest level common denominator; or would like to? Do you regularly open up your introduction onto a unfamiliar boat BY DEMANDING a verifiable account and log of all of its past navigational history and incidents? Do you leap over the side to inspect all critical items and skin fittings? Do you ultrasound cores, dye test for cracks or weld failures? Of course you don't.

This approach to massively overburdening our lives with bureaucracy, oversight and governance is just what we don't need. Because one keel fell off. Our sport is a tiny niche of many activities - and offshore sailing is a tiny niche of said tiny niche. Do you not feel that this is a sledgehammer approach to crack a peanut type problem? Enquiries are fraught with agendas, as outlined above. I am not sure what the correct path should be, but I know that your suggestions are way over the top. I would like for the findings to be discovered and made transparent, but Lawyers and their practices, prevent such honourable notions from becoming reality, so that won't happen. So what alternatives do we have? 

If AS are smart (and fuck, they don't appear to be.....), now that their hands are tied to doing this, they should quickly focus their enquiry and rapidly conclude on what went right from a safety, training and response management side of things, convey to the real government bodies that this was just one of those things, contact WS that nothing could be proved or disproved but safety outcomes were good, pat themselves on the back and go back to choosing new curtains and furniture for their next office upgrade/redecoration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jason Ker said:

Actually no, sorry to be pedantic but all the evidence says the keel separated from itself.

Rob woke hearing a metallic ‘Ping’ just before he was thrown across the boat from his windward bunk as they capsized.

While they made their plans to escape it was apparent to Rob that the inverted boat was holding air pressure in the hull, so the top plate of the keel can only have remained fully bolted to the yacht.  When the crew swam down out of the boat, they saw that the vertical part of the keel was missing, revealing that the keel had failed at the welded joint between the exposed vertical and the recessed horizontal part.

So Jason, to clarify, a similar Weld failure that befell Drum in '85 Fastnet? But within a Socket within the Hull Shell?

How deep is this recessed part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Boink said:

So Jason, to clarify, a similar Weld failure that befell Drum in '85 Fastnet? But within a Socket within the Hull Shell?

How deep is this recessed part?

It's a recess to hide the flanged head of the keel, in itself it serves no structural purpose. Approx. 65mm deep. 

'socket' usually refers to a structural connectIon, like a socket for a flag pole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Boink said:

 Do you not feel that this is a sledgehammer approach to crack a peanut type problem ?  

If AS are smart (and fuck, they don't appear to be.....), now that their hands are tied to doing this, they should quickly focus their enquiry and rapidly conclude on what went right from a safety, training and response management side of things, convey to the real government bodies that this was just one of those things, contact WS that nothing could be proved or disproved but safety outcomes were good, pat themselves on the back and go back to choosing new curtains and furniture for their next office upgrade/redecoration.

The finer the adjustment the bigger the hammer  !!!!!

 

Why stop at choosing the curtains and furniture, it you want to spend money for little benefit it’s time for a name change and new logo. Just think, new logo, stationary, signage and all new uniforms both corporate and casual. I’m shore AS could blow a few million just by changing their name, after all it’s about the new image and after they get their ass kicked from this inquiry they’ll need a new image.

 

Sailing Oz has a good ring to it.

Pulpit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how this place wants to take anecdotal evidence and without qualification, carry out a Sailing Anarchy forum inquiry. But when an MNA decides to commission a real one, everyone shouts and screams. 

Jason, this is all supposition from you and drawing conclusions from a position of a conflict of interests. I would provide what you know to the panel carrying out the inquiry and let them write the report and provide recommendations from a neutral position. If what you say is correct then it is a possible scenario, but I don't think that you have enough to suggest this is conclusive evidence. Let's wait and see what the three experts appointed find out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Jason Ker said:

Actually no, sorry to be pedantic but all the evidence says the keel separated from itself.

Yes, sorry, I did mean that it was most likely that the vertical beam part of the keel separated from the bolted flange on the hull, not that the keel in toto came loose from the hull. *PROBABLY* a stress crack in the weld - BUT........

this is a quibble and ignores my question. Absent BOTH the broken away part of the keel AND the hull with the (presumably) still attached bolted flange, how in hell can anyone make any sensible comment about the failure mode? So what is the enquiry likely to accomplish in practical safety terms?

I've done this sort of failure mode enquiries in a past life. One bit of equipment costing over $500K is still sitting on the bottom of the ocean following a gear failure. We lost a lot more over the years too.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

Funny how this place wants to take anecdotal evidence and without qualification, carry out a Sailing Anarchy forum inquiry. But when an MNA decides to commission a real one, everyone shouts and screams. 

Jason, this is all supposition from you and drawing conclusions from a position of a conflict of interests. I would provide what you know to the panel carrying out the inquiry and let them write the report and provide recommendations from a neutral position. If what you say is correct then it is a possible scenario, but I don't think that you have enough to suggest this is conclusive evidence. Let's wait and see what the three experts appointed find out.

The problem is, as I have said, that without either or both of the broken bits, the appointed experts aren't going to find out *anything* about the actual failure. All they can do is speculate. Just more supposition.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

Funny how this place wants to take anecdotal evidence and without qualification, carry out a Sailing Anarchy forum inquiry. But when an MNA decides to commission a real one, everyone shouts and screams. 

See there is your problem!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

The problem is, as I have said, that without either or both of the broken bits, the appointed experts aren't going to find out *anything* about the actual failure. All they can do is speculate. Just more supposition.

FKT

At the moment we assume that there is no more evidence or info than we have seen on this forum. Let’s wait and see if the inquiry can establish anything else from interviews/service history/QC documents, then we will see.

But if no more than we see here, I agree and would suspect that the report would conclude that there was insufficient evidence. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boink said:

Do you work for AS or are trying to get work with AS? Or have either created a EU zone like governance structure that trips over itself while just compromising every member constituent to lowest level common denominator; or would like to? Do you regularly open up your introduction onto a unfamiliar boat BY DEMANDING a verifiable account and log of all of its past navigational history and incidents? Do you leap over the side to inspect all critical items and skin fittings? Do you ultrasound cores, dye test for cracks or weld failures? Of course you don't.

This approach to massively overburdening our lives with bureaucracy, oversight and governance is just what we don't need. Because one keel fell off. Our sport is a tiny niche of many activities - and offshore sailing is a tiny niche of said tiny niche. Do you not feel that this is a sledgehammer approach to crack a peanut type problem? Enquiries are fraught with agendas, as outlined above. I am not sure what the correct path should be, but I know that your suggestions are way over the top. I would like for the findings to be discovered and made transparent, but Lawyers and their practices, prevent such honourable notions from becoming reality, so that won't happen. So what alternatives do we have? 

If AS are smart (and fuck, they don't appear to be.....), now that their hands are tied to doing this, they should quickly focus their enquiry and rapidly conclude on what went right from a safety, training and response management side of things, convey to the real government bodies that this was just one of those things, contact WS that nothing could be proved or disproved but safety outcomes were good, pat themselves on the back and go back to choosing new curtains and furniture for their next office upgrade/redecoration.

I am not sure what the EU has to do with this. Are we the new villains responsible of all the ills of the world? If you start building concentration camps, please let me know so that I can run to the hills in time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

I am not sure what the EU has to do with this. Are we the new villains responsible of all the ills of the world? 

Ask Boris.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chimp too said:

. Over 24m the only recognised standard until you get up to commercial vessels is the DNV-GL rule which Hasso wrote.

That's not what the WS document I quoted says. It specifies classification society. Which could be Lloyd's or RINA----only problem is I can't find anywhere on WS that has a list of recognized societies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chimp too said:

Funny how this place wants to take anecdotal evidence and without qualification, carry out a Sailing Anarchy forum inquiry. But when an MNA decides to commission a real one, everyone shouts and screams. 

Jason, this is all supposition from you and drawing conclusions from a position of a conflict of interests. I would provide what you know to the panel carrying out the inquiry and let them write the report and provide recommendations from a neutral position. If what you say is correct then it is a possible scenario, but I don't think that you have enough to suggest this is conclusive evidence. Let's wait and see what the three experts appointed find out.

If nobody gets the boat and the keel then all of this is speculation anyway--"inquiry" or not.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chimp too said:

At the moment we assume that there is no more evidence or info than we have seen on this forum. Let’s wait and see if the inquiry can establish anything else from interviews/service history/QC documents, then we will see.

But if no more than we see here, I agree and would suspect that the report would conclude that there was insufficient evidence. 

 

26 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

If nobody gets the boat and the keel then all of this is speculation anyway--"inquiry" or not.

Thread closed until further notice then.:)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

If nobody gets the boat and the keel then all of this is speculation anyway--"inquiry" or not.

Not necessarily, if they find for instance that the new keel has been designed by monkeys entering random numbers in a computer, they will have something meaningful to report. I know little about the marine industry but sadly, I've witnessed it in the construction industry. " I don't really understand what you are talking about but look the computer says it's OK".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

That's not what the WS document I quoted says. It specifies classification society. Which could be Lloyd's or RINA----only problem is I can't find anywhere on WS that has a list of recognized societies...

ISO 12215 only applies up to 24m. So is used by the notified bodies up to that size. Each cert shows the body used. There you will see who is recognised, although that has been reviewed in the last few years and reduced as not all Notified Bodies have personnel with the appropriate knowledge and experience for race yachts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panoramix said:

Not necessarily, if they find for instance that the new keel has been designed by monkeys entering random numbers in a computer, they will have something meaningful to report. 

I can assure you I had nothing to do with the keel design!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chimp too said:

ISO 12215 only applies up to 24m. So is used by the notified bodies up to that size. Each cert shows the body used. There you will see who is recognised, although that has been reviewed in the last few years and reduced as not all Notified Bodies have personnel with the appropriate knowledge and experience for race yachts.

Can you point me to where on WS they declare who/what classification societies or other entities are approved?

Yes I understand that EN 12215 applies below 24m and that above 24m WS requires classification by a "recognised classification society"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Can you point me to where on WS they declare who/what classification societies or other entities are approved?

Yes I understand that EN 12215 applies below 24m and that above 24m WS requires classification by a "recognised classification society"

Not right now as not got my laptop. Do a search on the WS website for plan review 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Can you point me to where on WS they declare who/what classification societies or other entities are approved?

Yes I understand that EN 12215 applies below 24m and that above 24m WS requires classification by a "recognised classification society"

https://www.sailing.org/classesandequipment/offshore/plan_review.php
https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingRecognizedNotifiedBodiesAugust2018-[24163].pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chimp too said:

Not right now as not got my laptop. Do a search on the WS website for plan review 

 

Thanks--after searching that and reading a certificate it turns out that " ISAF Recognised Notified Body " is the term to search and that turned up THIS:

https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingRecognizedNotifiedBodiesAugust2018-[24163].pdf

So apparently RINA and DNVare on the list but not LR! Considering that this new requirement (about 10 years) is supposed to be worldwide, it looks terribly impractical for that purpose. It is very Francocentric, Eurocentric. I understand why they chose to us the EN 12215 (because it was made into an ISO standard) but it isn't a real worldwide standard in practice (yet). In the US, unless you are exporting to EU there has never been a need for it. ABYC standards were more common here.

5 minutes ago, Pelle said:

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Boink said:

...they should quickly focus their enquiry and rapidly conclude on what went right from a safety, training and response management side of things, convey to the real government bodies that this was just one of those things, contact WS that nothing could be proved or disproved but safety outcomes were good, pat themselves on the back...

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that a review of the design and construction plans and also the post-construction NDT results might bring something to the fore. Anything else, even the claim that the fin broke, is so speculative as to be worthless without evidence in hand.

Ideally, AS would ask World Sailing or perhaps the ATSB to lead any investigation as it doesn't seem that AS has the capability to do much of, well, anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites