Jump to content


Artemis?


  • Please log in to reply
10846 replies to this topic

#6401 Kahlessa

Kahlessa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Books, history, science, adventure, discovering life's hidden secrets

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:59 AM

A great loss. A sad day for sailing.

I'm a former Olympic multihull crew. I was trapped under a turtled Tornado catamaran in the last race of the 1988 Olympics. We had just cart-wheeled torward the end of first reach in a 40 knot puff. The boat became airborn and landed upside down in the turtle position. As crew, I was hooked into the trapeze wire. When I got my bearings after impact, I instinctvely began to kick toward to the surface. I was stopped 12 inches below the surface of the ocean by my trapese wire. I tried to reach down and unhook but my arm was not functioning as my shoulder had been violently dislocated during the crash. I was having difficulty unhooking with my other hand. I held my breath and kept trying to unhook from the trapeze hook, hoping that my skipper, Pete Melvin was close by. The clock was ticking fast but he got to me in time and pulled the quick release on the trapeze hook and I shot to the surface taking in a deep gulp of air. I owe my life to him.

Fast boats are dangerous when things go wrong. We know that when we step aboard. It is a risk we are willing to accept.

From what I have heard over the last few months since Artemis first launched is that this boat has gone through signicicant repair and rework. This can be seen by some as normal during a Cup cycle, especially with the introduction of a new class.

The the most eye opening incident was the main beam cracking during load testing as the boat was towed on the bay without the wing in place. Apparently the beam was not properly supported while the rig was not in place. If some of the reports we are hearing about yesterday's event are true, the main beam folded, the wing fell and one of the hulls tore away, as the main beam was split into two pieces. This is called a total catastrophic failure. Nothing the sailors can do at that point. Nathan's father stated that his son reported to him that he was just sailing normally and the main beam broke in two. It is possible that the beam broke while stuffing the bows, but that is a normal sailing condition and should not a cause massive structural failure. The beam should definately survive a capsize as well. It is the main structural element of the entire yacht. It should be the last thing to fail. Ever. Even in the America's Cup class.

I'm not an engineer, but I can't stress enough how critical the main beam is to keeping these boats in one piece. If if goes, everything else fails very quickly as the whole boat folds up on itself, possible trapping the crew. Carbon fiber is not something that is easily repaired to first quality. Especally with something as highly loaded like the main beam, You want a lot of straight, continuous fibers spanning from port to starboard to take the strain and twisting. Repair splices, discontinous fibers and hearing load cracking noises are not desireble for a part like this. Personally, I would have had serious reservations, sailing at 40 knots with a repaired main beam that had cracked and repaired earlier.

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is so much about pich-poling, going too fast or the bay being too windy. If the boat broke, it's about engineering and/or sailing with equioment that was not up not up to the job. Why wasn't that beam replaced? Maybe it was replaced. I dont have all the facts, but it did break in two. That we can see.

God speed Bart

 

Thanks for a thoughtful and insightful piece born of first-hand experience. You've also reminded us that little in this world is entirely new but the context shifts.  We still have much to learn but you've added direction to the way my thoughts are shaping

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this tragedy.



#6402 Kahlessa

Kahlessa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Books, history, science, adventure, discovering life's hidden secrets

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:03 AM

Waking up this morning, the pain I feel hasn't eased. In fact, it is now worse, made so by a very real story one of my friends passed on. This friend was on the rib that took Bart back to shore and he was with Bart when he was pronounced dead. My friend was a close friend of Bart's, having been part of Team GBR and sailed with and worked with Bart (and Perc). It is hard to imagine that experience and how that would effect somebody, but I am sure that every member of the Artemis family will have some story to tell and all will be greatly effected and while Perc is right in saying that we need to be thinking of and supporting Bart's wife, kids and family, we need to remember the trauma that everybody close to the team and to Bart are going through. 

 

It is easy at this time to be angry, to want to blame somebody but I think the last thing these people need a re a group of internet vultures picking over the bones of this trying to speculate about what happened and its repercussions. This might be "Anarchy", but  I truly believe that, at very least, it is too soon to start speculating and it is best to wait until those involved tell us more.

+10

 

A rush to judgement will not make anyone safer. 



When catastrophe occurs, the media (and many people) want simple answers and a clear target to blame, and they want it yesterday. Complexity and thorough understanding are sacrificed on the altar of timeliness.



#6403 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,467 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:04 AM

It's not that the ETNZ statement was posted on a secret site...

Nevertheless, disclosing the identity of a poster is absolutely beyond any netiquette.

I haven't seen any links or copies of the TNZ statement here with all the other comments that have been posted. With all the active kiwi posters, why this is the case is a more relevant question...

 

And I don't routinely check the AC site of any of the teams.



#6404 KiwiJoker

KiwiJoker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,748 posts
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:09 AM

James Boyd at the The Daily Sail is always good value.  It sounds as if he was plugged into the media conference today, or got some additional quotes later.  Here, a sample of his article today:

 

Bernie Wilson from AP asked the not unreasonable question – “after two capsizes and one death – are these boats too dangerous?” While Stephen Barclay ducked this, referring to the future publication of Murray’s investigation, Murray put the incident into context: “There have been a lot of fatalities. There were five off San Francisco last year and that wasn’t judged to be too dangerous and ocean racing has continued since. Larry Klein the 1989 Rolex Yachtsman of the Year drowned after simply falling overboard in San Francisco Bay in 1994. I was involved in the Sydney Hobart race when six people died. We have to live with these things and we have to go forward in the best way that we can. The AC72s are progressing sailing. We have come a long way from the 12m with cotton sails to Kevlar sails or carbon fibre masts or five rounds of the ACCs boats. It is progress. It is what these guys want to do - they want to take sailing to the next level and these boats provide that platform.”

 

Premium access is Members Only, but worth it.  You can sign up for a month's free access.



#6405 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 877 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:17 AM

We've heard something from OR, LR, GGYC, TT, PC, etc. Why nothing from TNZ ? 

 

From Facebook ..

  Thank you Emirates Team New Zealand for the kind gesture.
935513_10151405225631087_1154227145_n.jp
Unlike ·  · Share · 229516 · 55 minutes ago · 

  •  


#6406 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,467 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:22 AM

We've heard something from OR, LR, GGYC, TT, PC, etc. Why nothing from TNZ ? 

 

From Facebook ..

  Thank you Emirates Team New Zealand for the kind gesture.
935513_10151405225631087_1154227145_n.jp
Unlike ·  · Share · 229516 · 55 minutes ago · 

  •  

Thanks - I saw Tony's earlier post, maybe you overlooked it.  However nothing was posted here prior to my comment, but maybe I missed it and you would be so informative as to post a link -



#6407 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:13 AM

James Boyd at the The Daily Sail is always good value.  It sounds as if he was plugged into the media conference today, or got some additional quotes later.  Here, a sample of his article today:

 

Bernie Wilson from AP asked the not unreasonable question – “after two capsizes and one death – are these boats too dangerous?” While Stephen Barclay ducked this, referring to the future publication of Murray’s investigation, Murray put the incident into context: “There have been a lot of fatalities. There were five off San Francisco last year and that wasn’t judged to be too dangerous and ocean racing has continued since. Larry Klein the 1989 Rolex Yachtsman of the Year drowned after simply falling overboard in San Francisco Bay in 1994. I was involved in the Sydney Hobart race when six people died. We have to live with these things and we have to go forward in the best way that we can. The AC72s are progressing sailing. We have come a long way from the 12m with cotton sails to Kevlar sails or carbon fibre masts or five rounds of the ACCs boats. It is progress. It is what these guys want to do - they want to take sailing to the next level and these boats provide that platform.”

 

Premium access is Members Only, but worth it.  You can sign up for a month's free access.

 

 

This is a very interesting quote from Iain Murray. If that's their attitude then I think it has to be put in a brutally honest way to the sailors so they can make up their own minds.

 

Murray is saying that the AC is now a dangerous sport like ocean racing and there will be accidents and deaths from time to time. This is a big change from the AC in the past which was a fairly safe sport just involving day sailing about the buoys in keelboats.

 

Maybe that's fine for some of the sailors who have done VORs or other long offshore races, but there's now a bunch of small boat sailors who are in demand for the AC because they have experience foiling or sailing high performance boats. Do these guys want to risk their lives in a sailing boat race? There's a different mindset between things like offshore and inshore racing and accepting the extra level of risk is not for everyone.



#6408 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,467 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:20 AM

James Boyd at the The Daily Sail is always good value.  It sounds as if he was plugged into the media conference today, or got some additional quotes later.  Here, a sample of his article today:

 

Bernie Wilson from AP asked the not unreasonable question – “after two capsizes and one death – are these boats too dangerous?” While Stephen Barclay ducked this, referring to the future publication of Murray’s investigation, Murray put the incident into context: “There have been a lot of fatalities. There were five off San Francisco last year and that wasn’t judged to be too dangerous and ocean racing has continued since. Larry Klein the 1989 Rolex Yachtsman of the Year drowned after simply falling overboard in San Francisco Bay in 1994. I was involved in the Sydney Hobart race when six people died. We have to live with these things and we have to go forward in the best way that we can. The AC72s are progressing sailing. We have come a long way from the 12m with cotton sails to Kevlar sails or carbon fibre masts or five rounds of the ACCs boats. It is progress. It is what these guys want to do - they want to take sailing to the next level and these boats provide that platform.”

 

Premium access is Members Only, but worth it.  You can sign up for a month's free access.

 

 

This is a very interesting quote from Iain Murray. If that's their attitude then I think it has to be put in a brutally honest way to the sailors so they can make up their own minds.

 

Murray is saying that the AC is now a dangerous sport like ocean racing and there will be accidents and deaths from time to time. This is a big change from the AC in the past which was a fairly safe sport just involving day sailing about the buoys in keelboats.

 

Maybe that's fine for some of the sailors who have done VORs or other long offshore races, but there's now a bunch of small boat sailors who are in demand for the AC because they have experience foiling or sailing high performance boats. Do these guys want to risk their lives in a sailing boat race? There's a different mindset between things like offshore and inshore racing and accepting the extra level of risk is not for everyone.

 

And how many times have JS and others openly cited the risks involved ?

 

While a very unfortunate situation has taken place, recognition of the inherent risk is not the issue. Realizing the circumstances maybe, but not recognition.



#6409 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:58 AM

 

James Boyd at the The Daily Sail is always good value.  It sounds as if he was plugged into the media conference today, or got some additional quotes later.  Here, a sample of his article today:

 

Bernie Wilson from AP asked the not unreasonable question – “after two capsizes and one death – are these boats too dangerous?” While Stephen Barclay ducked this, referring to the future publication of Murray’s investigation, Murray put the incident into context: “There have been a lot of fatalities. There were five off San Francisco last year and that wasn’t judged to be too dangerous and ocean racing has continued since. Larry Klein the 1989 Rolex Yachtsman of the Year drowned after simply falling overboard in San Francisco Bay in 1994. I was involved in the Sydney Hobart race when six people died. We have to live with these things and we have to go forward in the best way that we can. The AC72s are progressing sailing. We have come a long way from the 12m with cotton sails to Kevlar sails or carbon fibre masts or five rounds of the ACCs boats. It is progress. It is what these guys want to do - they want to take sailing to the next level and these boats provide that platform.”

 

Premium access is Members Only, but worth it.  You can sign up for a month's free access.

 

 

This is a very interesting quote from Iain Murray. If that's their attitude then I think it has to be put in a brutally honest way to the sailors so they can make up their own minds.

 

Murray is saying that the AC is now a dangerous sport like ocean racing and there will be accidents and deaths from time to time. This is a big change from the AC in the past which was a fairly safe sport just involving day sailing about the buoys in keelboats.

 

Maybe that's fine for some of the sailors who have done VORs or other long offshore races, but there's now a bunch of small boat sailors who are in demand for the AC because they have experience foiling or sailing high performance boats. Do these guys want to risk their lives in a sailing boat race? There's a different mindset between things like offshore and inshore racing and accepting the extra level of risk is not for everyone.

 

And how many times have JS and others openly cited the risks involved ?

 

While a very unfortunate situation has taken place, recognition of the inherent risk is not the issue. Realizing the circumstances maybe, but not recognition.

 

 

I don't think it was discussed enough when the format of the AC was changed.

 

Sailing in the AC prior to 2007 wasn't really any more dangerous that working in a factory where you had to operate heavy equipment.

 

The ACWS was also reasonably safe. Boats pitchpoled and the crew didn't want to land on the wing because it would damage the wing.

 

But the AC72s are an extreme sport. The boats can pitchpole and some of the crew could be falling from the height of a 3 or 4 story building. If they hit something hard there's a good chance they'll be killed. These guys are not even using tethers. Talk about gungho!

 

Everybody is welcome to make their own choices, but I wouldn't sail on these boats.



#6410 sheeting yarns

sheeting yarns

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:35 AM

The V5 AC class boats were pretty dangerous and could easily have claimed more lives. And the 12m class before it. There are numerous people over the years who have suffered injuries and some very lucky escapes when boats have broken in half, spin poles, booms and masts have broken and even just transferring equipment and personnel  from tender to AC boat in rough seas has seen many near catastrophes.

 

The AC and ocean racing are extreme sports. The crews know exactly what the risks are when they sign up for it. They can choose to do it knowing the risks or they can choose not to do it. Given that all the crews in each team are at the top of their game and are also passionate about what they are doing, I don't expect anyone is going to be giving up their job with the teams. They will learn lessons from what happened and use that knowledge to minimize the risks for others as always happens.

 

So we will be left to see what vested interests will twist the situation into something that it is not.



#6411 P Flados

P Flados

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:36 AM

fireball,

 

 

Your statement implying that these sailors do not understand the risk involved is an absolute insult to intelligence of these skilled and competitive guys.

 

These are not Hobie 16s.  

 

These boats are very big, very fast and very powerful.  Each is basically a "new from scratch"  design for the type of sailing involved.

 

The whole "wearing helmets" and other similar provisions just go to underscore the risks involved. 

 

In many competitive sports, there is an element of risk.  Very rarely will you find that the participants are not aware of it.

 

And it is pretty obvious that most of posters trying to jump in with the "this shows that big wing sail cats were a bad choice" theme, are really just sore about the change in format for reasons other than those stated.  

 

Be real and be honest.  This AC was an attempt to have "the fastest boats and the fastest sailors".  The choices were made by people trying to achieve a more exiting level of sailing.  Big cats with wings was not a bad choice.  Mistakes have been made.  So what.  We are all human.  

 

If you seriously think that humans can push the limits of sailing like these teams have without taking chances and without making mistakes, you should apply for a job with OSHA (or its equivalent in you country).  This is the kind of thinking that tends to end up with all of those Government (OSHA for the US) rules that are so completely out of touch with the real world.



#6412 NZL3481

NZL3481

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 691 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:34 AM

The emotions within Artemis are very difficult to comprehend as these teams are effectively a 'family'. The loss of a family member seriously hurts in anyones language especially so with Barts wife, children, siblings, parents and so on. Some people never get over that hurt.

 

If Artemis chose to not continue in this AC, nobody could be critical of that and if they do, the extraordinary hurdles they would have to overcome to do so would also be a triumph of human spirit and a great tribute to a brilliant man, father and sailor.

 

Long may we remember Bart.



#6413 fireball

fireball

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 710 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:38 AM

fireball,

 

 

Your statement implying that these sailors do not understand the risk involved is an absolute insult to intelligence of these skilled and competitive guys.

 

These are not Hobie 16s.  

 

These boats are very big, very fast and very powerful.  Each is basically a "new from scratch"  design for the type of sailing involved.

 

The whole "wearing helmets" and other similar provisions just go to underscore the risks involved. 

 

In many competitive sports, there is an element of risk.  Very rarely will you find that the participants are not aware of it.

 

And it is pretty obvious that most of posters trying to jump in with the "this shows that big wing sail cats were a bad choice" theme, are really just sore about the change in format for reasons other than those stated.  

 

Be real and be honest.  This AC was an attempt to have "the fastest boats and the fastest sailors".  The choices were made by people trying to achieve a more exiting level of sailing.  Big cats with wings was not a bad choice.  Mistakes have been made.  So what.  We are all human.  

 

If you seriously think that humans can push the limits of sailing like these teams have without taking chances and without making mistakes, you should apply for a job with OSHA (or its equivalent in you country).  This is the kind of thinking that tends to end up with all of those Government (OSHA for the US) rules that are so completely out of touch with the real world.

 

 

I love high performanace boats and I've been in seventh heaven since ETNZ started foiling, but there's going to be a hugh clusterf*ck if they don't make some major changes between now and the start of the racing.

 

In an ebb tide the current boats really can't race in more than about 20 knots, but the wind limits go up to 33 knots! They have a out with a clause that allows racing to be cancelled in rough conditions.

 

I hope they use this out to cancel races in difficult conditions, so they can nurse these boats through the cup and nobody else gets hurt. Then they need to make major changes to the boats.

 

I don't think these sailors want to be in an extreme sport. Most of them don't get paid much at all. They want to go sailing and have fun and go home safely. They're not F1 drivers getting paid millions of dollars and going at death defying speeds.  And with the current AC boats, it's probably safer to drive a racing car than to go sailing. That's just crazy!



#6414 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:12 AM

I hope they use this out to cancel races in difficult conditions, so they can nurse these boats through the cup and nobody else gets hurt. Then they need to make major changes to the boats.

 

if they need to nurse the weakest boat through the cup so no one gets hurt

 

they should just call the whole thing off



#6415 richiec

richiec

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:28 AM

He is lucky who, in the full tide of life, has experienced a measure of the active environment he most desires. In these days of upheaval and violent change, when the basic values of today are the vain and shattered dreams of tomorrow, there is much to be said for a philosophy which aims at living a full life while the opportunity offers. There are few treasures of more lasting worth than the experience of a way of life that is in itself wholly satisfying. Such, after all, are the only possessions of which no fate, no cosmic catastrophe can deprive us; nothing can alter the fact if for one moment in eternity we have really lived. (Eric Shipton)

 

No one could ever argue that this fine sailor 'really lived'.

 

Strength to all involved - family and team mates. Vale.



#6416 zillafreak

zillafreak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Location:Newport Beach

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:18 AM

fireball,

 

 

Your statement implying that these sailors do not understand the risk involved is an absolute insult to intelligence of these skilled and competitive guys.

 

These are not Hobie 16s.  

 

These boats are very big, very fast and very powerful.  Each is basically a "new from scratch"  design for the type of sailing involved.

 

The whole "wearing helmets" and other similar provisions just go to underscore the risks involved. 

 

In many competitive sports, there is an element of risk.  Very rarely will you find that the participants are not aware of it.

 

And it is pretty obvious that most of posters trying to jump in with the "this shows that big wing sail cats were a bad choice" theme, are really just sore about the change in format for reasons other than those stated.  

 

Be real and be honest.  This AC was an attempt to have "the fastest boats and the fastest sailors".  The choices were made by people trying to achieve a more exiting level of sailing.  Big cats with wings was not a bad choice.  Mistakes have been made.  So what.  We are all human.  

 

If you seriously think that humans can push the limits of sailing like these teams have without taking chances and without making mistakes, you should apply for a job with OSHA (or its equivalent in you country).  This is the kind of thinking that tends to end up with all of those Government (OSHA for the US) rules that are so completely out of touch with the real world.

+1

 

This was a horrible tragedy, and for the loved ones involved who lost their father, a husband, a son, a friend, sailing means nothing in this time of grief. But the sailors wore helmets, carried knives and oxygen bottles, drilled for safety to avoid drowning in the event of a capsize. The danger was known and ever present, yet they showed up every day and put their lives on the line. This tragedy was due to a catastrophic structural failure from bad engineering, bad construction or both, not an inherent problem with the AC72 concept. 

 

Condolences to the family for your unimaginable loss.



#6417 Terrafirma

Terrafirma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:29 AM

Iain Murray's comments make sense. I think Andrew would want the event to continue . We lose lives in ocean racing all the time despite the inherent danger. Unfortunately accidents happen notwithstanding the pending investigations into what may have failed on Artemis. Once again condolences to Andrew's family and friends, he was someone special who will be missed dearly.



#6418 dumper

dumper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Location:straya

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:20 AM

any news on where the boat is now? is it still on Treasure island or back at the base?



#6419 hiroller

hiroller

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 461 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:16 AM

According to the brother of a current AC sailor (today), there are real concerns about:

1) wearing inflatable life vests and getting stuck under the boat.

2) the 2 minute limit of air.

 

Of interest is that a number of current skiff sailors in 18's and 16's on Sydney Harbour don't like wearing life vests as they prevent you from being able to swim out from under the rig in the event of a capsize to windward.



#6420 CheekyMonkey

CheekyMonkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:25 AM

any news on where the boat is now? is it still on Treasure island or back at the base?

 

It was lifted out of the water and placed in a hangar on Treasure Island to await investigators.

 

I saw some brief video of it being lifted, but it wasn't long or clear enough to provide a better idea of the current state of the boat.  B-roll, if you're familiar with the broadcast term.



#6421 catmanjr

catmanjr

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:26 AM

According to the brother of a current AC sailor (today), there are real concerns about:

1) wearing inflatable life vests and getting stuck under the boat.

2) the 2 minute limit of air.

 

Of interest is that a number of current skiff sailors in 18's and 16's on Sydney Harbour don't like wearing life vests as they prevent you from being able to swim out from under the rig in the event of a capsize to windward.

 

The 18's aren't allowed to wear jackets. Due to not wanting to get stuck under rig or what not. People just take a good idea and follow on.



#6422 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:40 AM

any news on where the boat is now? is it still on Treasure island or back at the base?

 

It was lifted out of the water and placed in a hangar on Treasure Island to await investigators.

 

I saw some brief video of it being lifted, but it wasn't long or clear enough to provide a better idea of the current state of the boat.  B-roll, if you're familiar with the broadcast term.

 

The boat won't be repaired and will never sail again with the damage incurred.

And quite frankly, thank goodness. I don't count myself as overly superstitious, but...



#6423 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,732 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:40 AM

According to the brother of a current AC sailor (today), there are real concerns about:

1) wearing inflatable life vests and getting stuck under the boat.

2) the 2 minute limit of air.

 

Of interest is that a number of current skiff sailors in 18's and 16's on Sydney Harbour don't like wearing life vests as they prevent you from being able to swim out from under the rig in the event of a capsize to windward.

A few points from personal experience. I cannot comment on 16' skiffs, but the reason why we don't wear buoyancy on an 18 is because of the wings and netting, not the rig. I have been caught under the main and it isn't a problem. The issue is being able to dive down deep enough to get out if the boat turns turtle.

 

As for the air, the issue is what alternatives there are. After a death occurred in an 18 being sailed in Hawaii, I investigated "spare air" for the Sydney 18' League. The pioneers in this area are the extreme big wave surfers and the spare air bottle we see on the 72's are the same as I looked at. the issue is simple - they hold about 10 breaths of air, which can last for as little as 30 seconds if in a panic or 2-3 minutes if you can stay reasonably calm. The thing to realise is that they are still fairly bulky and if it was practical to go bigger, I am sure they would have been made, but simply, it is not practical. The other problem with any spare air system is that it relies on the person being conscious and also being able to get to the air - even with the things they are using, it is possible to get into a position where you can't get your hands to it.

 

I don't actually know why I am posting - I have tried not to over the last few months because of the few idiots on here who have driven away so many and this thread is just as bad, if not worse. Some of you are a very insensitive bunch of people with no respect. However, having nearly drowned while sailing, I think I have something to say about the safety issues, which is why I got involved with looking at safety with the 18's.

 

And to all of those who say Bart would have wanted it to go on, I say that is an empty sentiment which misses the point because I would bet anything that, considering how many of his close friends are sailing these boats, his number one thought would be that everything must be done to ensure nobody else dies in this manner.



#6424 Terry Hollis

Terry Hollis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 877 posts
  • Location:Auckland New Zealand

Posted 11 May 2013 - 09:59 AM

 

any news on where the boat is now? is it still on Treasure island or back at the base?

 

It was lifted out of the water and placed in a hangar on Treasure Island to await investigators.

 

I saw some brief video of it being lifted, but it wasn't long or clear enough to provide a better idea of the current state of the boat.  B-roll, if you're familiar with the broadcast term.

 

The boat won't be repaired and will never sail again with the damage incurred.

And quite frankly, thank goodness. I don't count myself as overly superstitious, but...

 

True .. the boat will never be used again but Artemis must be concerned about the damage to the wing which needs to be available for b2 ..



#6425 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:02 AM

 

 

any news on where the boat is now? is it still on Treasure island or back at the base?

 

It was lifted out of the water and placed in a hangar on Treasure Island to await investigators.

 

I saw some brief video of it being lifted, but it wasn't long or clear enough to provide a better idea of the current state of the boat.  B-roll, if you're familiar with the broadcast term.

 

The boat won't be repaired and will never sail again with the damage incurred.

And quite frankly, thank goodness. I don't count myself as overly superstitious, but...

 

True .. the boat will never be used again but Artemis must be concerned about the damage to the wing which needs to be available for b2 ..

 

Indeed. Do they have a 3rd wing? If not, then there is a real question as to whether they can reach the start line in July



#6426 Alpina

Alpina

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,100 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:37 AM

W3 has been in the base on Alameda all the time, it's pretty much ready for action.

 

Regarding the IACCs; while working for ACM during two LVA's back in 2005 a guy going up the mast on United Internet Team Germany when they entered a huge wind shift causing him to loose grip of the mast 2/3s up, he got smashed pretty good and was close to moving on. Pretty much like what happens in the movie Wind.

 

I was looking forward to this summers racing but right now it all feels pretty pointless, I guess it's safe to say Bart would want the event may go on as planned. After all, the VOR did not change neither boat nor field of play after Hans Horrevoets' demise.



#6427 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,030 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 10:40 AM

A great loss. A sad day for sailing.

I'm a former Olympic multihull crew. I was trapped under a turtled Tornado catamaran in the last race of the 1988 Olympics. We had just cart-wheeled torward the end of first reach in a 40 knot puff. The boat became airborn and landed upside down in the turtle position. As crew, I was hooked into the trapeze wire. When I got my bearings after impact, I instinctvely began to kick toward to the surface. I was stopped 12 inches below the surface of the ocean by my trapese wire. I tried to reach down and unhook but my arm was not functioning as my shoulder had been violently dislocated during the crash. I was having difficulty unhooking with my other hand. I held my breath and kept trying to unhook from the trapeze hook, hoping that my skipper, Pete Melvin was close by. The clock was ticking fast but he got to me in time and pulled the quick release on the trapeze hook and I shot to the surface taking in a deep gulp of air. I owe my life to him.

Fast boats are dangerous when things go wrong. We know that when we step aboard. It is a risk we are willing to accept.

From what I have heard over the last few months since Artemis first launched is that this boat has gone through signicicant repair and rework. This can be seen by some as normal during a Cup cycle, especially with the introduction of a new class.

The the most eye opening incident was the main beam cracking during load testing as the boat was towed on the bay without the wing in place. Apparently the beam was not properly supported while the rig was not in place. If some of the reports we are hearing about yesterday's event are true, the main beam folded, the wing fell and one of the hulls tore away, as the main beam was split into two pieces. This is called a total catastrophic failure. Nothing the sailors can do at that point. Nathan's father stated that his son reported to him that he was just sailing normally and the main beam broke in two. It is possible that the beam broke while stuffing the bows, but that is a normal sailing condition and should not a cause massive structural failure. The beam should definately survive a capsize as well. It is the main structural element of the entire yacht. It should be the last thing to fail. Ever. Even in the America's Cup class.

I'm not an engineer, but I can't stress enough how critical the main beam is to keeping these boats in one piece. If if goes, everything else fails very quickly as the whole boat folds up on itself, possible trapping the crew. Carbon fiber is not something that is easily repaired to first quality. Especally with something as highly loaded like the main beam, You want a lot of straight, continuous fibers spanning from port to starboard to take the strain and twisting. Repair splices, discontinous fibers and hearing load cracking noises are not desireble for a part like this. Personally, I would have had serious reservations, sailing at 40 knots with a repaired main beam that had cracked and repaired earlier.

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is so much about pich-poling, going too fast or the bay being too windy. If the boat broke, it's about engineering and/or sailing with equioment that was not up not up to the job. Why wasn't that beam replaced? Maybe it was replaced. I dont have all the facts, but it did break in two. That we can see.

God speed Bart

 

It seems it's 'ok' to discuss technical issues again. Great post.
 



#6428 Terrafirma

Terrafirma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:21 AM

Anything that is sailing at near 50 Knots maximum you can expect to be dangerous. Everyone said the old AC boats were boring. There is not much Iain Murray can do at this point. The teams will have to have their own safety regimes which they have. The sport or the current rule is not to blame if Artemis suffered a catastrophic failure, one needs to look at the designers and builders, they got it wrong. Let's hope Andrew's passing will be the turning point for the future safety of these sailors. You ask if these sailors want to race like this? I don't see them leaving, not one, nor do I expect they will. Unlike Oracle who capsized what was arguably an unsafe boat in certain conditions, Artemis would not have suffered this fate had the boat stayed together in one piece, it didn't. It seems to me their boat was plagued with structural problems unlike Team New Zealand who have sailed the most and in some rough conditions and have not looked unsafe in anyway. The difference is there, the teams in their totality have a huge responsibility to get it right.

 

 

 

Premium access is Members Only, but worth it.  You can sign up for a month's free access.

 

 

This is a very interesting quote from Iain Murray. If that's their attitude then I think it has to be put in a brutally honest way to the sailors so they can make up their own minds.

 

Murray is saying that the AC is now a dangerous sport like ocean racing and there will be accidents and deaths from time to time. This is a big change from the AC in the past which was a fairly safe sport just involving day sailing about the buoys in keelboats.

 

Maybe that's fine for some of the sailors who have done VORs or other long offshore races, but there's now a bunch of small boat sailors who are in demand for the AC because they have experience foiling or sailing high performance boats. Do these guys want to risk their lives in a sailing boat race? There's a different mindset between things like offshore and inshore racing and accepting the extra level of risk is not for everyone.



#6429 F15 AUS

F15 AUS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • Location:Shorncliffe, QLD

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:32 AM

According to the brother of a current AC sailor (today), there are real concerns about:

1) wearing inflatable life vests and getting stuck under the boat.

2) the 2 minute limit of air.

 

Of interest is that a number of current skiff sailors in 18's and 16's on Sydney Harbour don't like wearing life vests as they prevent you from being able to swim out from under the rig in the event of a capsize to windward.

A few points from personal experience. I cannot comment on 16' skiffs, but the reason why we don't wear buoyancy on an 18 is because of the wings and netting, not the rig. I have been caught under the main and it isn't a problem. The issue is being able to dive down deep enough to get out if the boat turns turtle.

 

As for the air, the issue is what alternatives there are. After a death occurred in an 18 being sailed in Hawaii, I investigated "spare air" for the Sydney 18' League. The pioneers in this area are the extreme big wave surfers and the spare air bottle we see on the 72's are the same as I looked at. the issue is simple - they hold about 10 breaths of air, which can last for as little as 30 seconds if in a panic or 2-3 minutes if you can stay reasonably calm. The thing to realise is that they are still fairly bulky and if it was practical to go bigger, I am sure they would have been made, but simply, it is not practical. The other problem with any spare air system is that it relies on the person being conscious and also being able to get to the air - even with the things they are using, it is possible to get into a position where you can't get your hands to it.

 

I don't actually know why I am posting - I have tried not to over the last few months because of the few idiots on here who have driven away so many and this thread is just as bad, if not worse. Some of you are a very insensitive bunch of people with no respect. However, having nearly drowned while sailing, I think I have something to say about the safety issues, which is why I got involved with looking at safety with the 18's.

 

And to all of those who say Bart would have wanted it to go on, I say that is an empty sentiment which misses the point because I would bet anything that, considering how many of his close friends are sailing these boats, his number one thought would be that everything must be done to ensure nobody else dies in this manner.

Have to agree about the 18s simon.

 

Had two close calls on the 18. A lifejacket would have killed me in the second one. I cant swim (can tread water but thats about it) but I would never wear a lifejacket on an 18 or a cat.



#6430 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:43 AM

A lot of the commentary has, understandably, been shaped by the sense of loss. Hopefully, the 3 days before the scheduled meeting on 14th May will allow the raw emotions to subside a little before they sit down to assess things objectively.



#6431 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,732 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:50 AM

 

According to the brother of a current AC sailor (today), there are real concerns about:

1) wearing inflatable life vests and getting stuck under the boat.

2) the 2 minute limit of air.

 

Of interest is that a number of current skiff sailors in 18's and 16's on Sydney Harbour don't like wearing life vests as they prevent you from being able to swim out from under the rig in the event of a capsize to windward.

A few points from personal experience. I cannot comment on 16' skiffs, but the reason why we don't wear buoyancy on an 18 is because of the wings and netting, not the rig. I have been caught under the main and it isn't a problem. The issue is being able to dive down deep enough to get out if the boat turns turtle.

 

As for the air, the issue is what alternatives there are. After a death occurred in an 18 being sailed in Hawaii, I investigated "spare air" for the Sydney 18' League. The pioneers in this area are the extreme big wave surfers and the spare air bottle we see on the 72's are the same as I looked at. the issue is simple - they hold about 10 breaths of air, which can last for as little as 30 seconds if in a panic or 2-3 minutes if you can stay reasonably calm. The thing to realise is that they are still fairly bulky and if it was practical to go bigger, I am sure they would have been made, but simply, it is not practical. The other problem with any spare air system is that it relies on the person being conscious and also being able to get to the air - even with the things they are using, it is possible to get into a position where you can't get your hands to it.

 

I don't actually know why I am posting - I have tried not to over the last few months because of the few idiots on here who have driven away so many and this thread is just as bad, if not worse. Some of you are a very insensitive bunch of people with no respect. However, having nearly drowned while sailing, I think I have something to say about the safety issues, which is why I got involved with looking at safety with the 18's.

 

And to all of those who say Bart would have wanted it to go on, I say that is an empty sentiment which misses the point because I would bet anything that, considering how many of his close friends are sailing these boats, his number one thought would be that everything must be done to ensure nobody else dies in this manner.

Have to agree about the 18s simon.

 

Had two close calls on the 18. A lifejacket would have killed me in the second one. I cant swim (can tread water but thats about it) but I would never wear a lifejacket on an 18 or a cat.

FWIW, I wouldn't wear a lifejacket on an 18 but I wouldn't sail without one on a cat, and if offered the chance to sail on an AC72, I would also want a lifejacket. Although there is a chance of getting caught under a beach cat, the real issue is that when on their side, they drift downwind at speed. There is a real risk of being separated. I nearly got separated from my A in a capsize because of drift but fortunately I managed to grab the trailing mainsheet, which was too long and I had forgotten to cut down to size! On the AC72, while I know there are chase boats, if you go overboard at speed in SF Bay, I think you want a lifejacket. In the event of a capsize, I would imagine there is as much chance of being injured falling as there is of being trapped and as such, the benefits of extra floatation seem to me to out way those of being trapped due to too much floatation.



#6432 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:51 AM

Condolences are all we can offer Andrew family, who now only have memories.

 

I said in a thread about Low Speed Chase that the best thing that can be taken away from an incident ,is what can be learnt to prevent deaths in the future. The rescue swimmer idea is something that I hope all the teams will action if that haven't all ready.

 

Fireball the rules in Australia changed under the new WHS laws, replacing OHS last year. Any organisation which has paid employees comes under the act, and any volunteer organisation which is big enough to be considered an "conducting a busines or undertaking" also comes under it (usually becaus ethey have some paid employees).

 

As a result in Scouts we now have a WHS manual which is almost 5 centimeters thick to cover all our activities (up to and including fire twirling for the Rovers) and we had to become a federally Recognised Training Organisation with vocational educational training (ie like a TAFE). All our Venturers, Rovers and Leader now have to under go VET training in the actvities, including sailing, as part of our WHS, under the Outdoor Recreation Certificate 2, 3 and 4. Interestingly that now actually makes me more legally qualified to instruct sailing than when I had just the Yachting Australia certification which is not VET recognised.  

 

If Scouts are under WHS you can bet your bottom dollar that professional sailing teams would be; they are being paid.

 

In the States, typically it is the local police jurisdiction that investigates boating accidents resulting in fatalities, and all they're looking for is whether or not a crime was committed, such as the operator being intoxicated.  I've never known the Coast Guard to get involved unless their assistance was requested, unless the vessel was USCG inspected and in commercial service.

I think in most U.S. states, serious boating accidents are investigated at the state level, regardless of whether a crime was committed.  For example in Wisconsin, the Department of Natural Resources (state-level agency with law enforcement authority over recreational boating) would investigate any fatal accident.  So, it's not just up to local police departments.



#6433 bigpat

bigpat

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:57 AM

First things first: RIP 'Bart' and condolences to his family and the team.....

Second, I think the last thing we need is knee jerk reactions like banning the boats, and finger pointing. All involved know the risk involved, and willingly do it, as professionals....

Like formula 1, unfortunately it takes something like this to focus thoughts on the technical and safety aspects of a sport, especially as the AC pushes the boundaries of the particular sailing class so hard and so fast.

In my opinion:
First we need a concise, engineering led investigation as to what happened, and any build /retrofit recommendations made to the boats, and the human side of things, such as safety procedures , regimes, or equipment. This should involve all from other teams as well.

If we are happy enough to proceed with the AC72 class, which I think with the financial investments made, makes sense. Also I think the multihulls a have caught people's imagination in a way mono hulls can't. We need to tap into those people and sponsors outside the sport, not preaching to the already converted. Then look at the quickest, and cost effective way to modify the boats.

I would say limit the horsepower of them, by capping mast height and sail area. Relatively quick and cheap to do.The huge wings are like a massive lever once the hulls dig in, resulting in huge forces on the beams and hulls etc. Say a 30% shorter mast greatly reduces the pitch loads on the boats. We can then introduce minimum build/load standards for the next cycle of boats, if the class rules remain.

With the reduced sail area, they would still have enough power I would think, but more importantly be safer and less nerve racking to sail...

Just my humble opinion......

#6434 Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Location:Northeast Wisconsin
  • Interests:etc.

Posted 11 May 2013 - 11:57 AM

These details are horrifying, if true.  Excerpt from Newcastle Herald story based on an interview with Nathan Outteridge's father: 

"A quick head count revealed one member of the crew was missing – Andrew Simpson – triggering a desperate search.

The British two-time Olympic gold medallist was trapped underwater, wedged underneath ‘‘a few tonnes’’ of carbon fibre, frantically trying to free himself.

His crew members could see him, fighting for his life and dived beneath the water to try to set him free.

They  handed the man they called ‘‘Bart’’ emergency oxygen bottles – which hold about 10 breaths each – in a bid to keep him alive in the hope rescue crews would arrive in time.

They didn’t."

http://www.theherald...capsize/?cs=303



#6435 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,030 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:21 PM

^ Bloody hell! Might explain IM's 'emotions'

 

America's Cup: Andrew Simpson MBE remembered
 

Alt_Sailing2012m_M24321.jpg
'Iain Percy and Andrew Simpson (GBR), pictured at the Men’s Keelboat (Star) event in the London 2012 Olympic Sailing Regatta' 


Andrew Simpson died doing what he did well – sailing a high-end racing craft.

He was a leading figure in the development of the Artemis Racing 72-foot wing-sailed catamaran for the upcoming America’s Cup. Simpson, known universally among his fellow sailors as 'Bart', was trapped under the boat when it capsized on San Francisco Bay during a routine training exercise. Efforts made to resuscitate him after being held underwater for ten minutes, both afloat and ashore, were unsuccessful.

 

more.. http://www.sail-worl...membered/109345



#6436 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:24 PM

FWIW, I wouldn't wear a lifejacket on an 18 but I wouldn't sail without one on a cat,

 

i wouldn't sail without a lifejacket on a beachcat

 

and wouldn't sail at all

 

if i couldn't swim



#6437 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:28 PM

 

 

According to the brother of a current AC sailor (today), there are real concerns about:

1) wearing inflatable life vests and getting stuck under the boat.

2) the 2 minute limit of air.

 

Of interest is that a number of current skiff sailors in 18's and 16's on Sydney Harbour don't like wearing life vests as they prevent you from being able to swim out from under the rig in the event of a capsize to windward.

A few points from personal experience. I cannot comment on 16' skiffs, but the reason why we don't wear buoyancy on an 18 is because of the wings and netting, not the rig. I have been caught under the main and it isn't a problem. The issue is being able to dive down deep enough to get out if the boat turns turtle.

 

As for the air, the issue is what alternatives there are. After a death occurred in an 18 being sailed in Hawaii, I investigated "spare air" for the Sydney 18' League. The pioneers in this area are the extreme big wave surfers and the spare air bottle we see on the 72's are the same as I looked at. the issue is simple - they hold about 10 breaths of air, which can last for as little as 30 seconds if in a panic or 2-3 minutes if you can stay reasonably calm. The thing to realise is that they are still fairly bulky and if it was practical to go bigger, I am sure they would have been made, but simply, it is not practical. The other problem with any spare air system is that it relies on the person being conscious and also being able to get to the air - even with the things they are using, it is possible to get into a position where you can't get your hands to it.

 

I don't actually know why I am posting - I have tried not to over the last few months because of the few idiots on here who have driven away so many and this thread is just as bad, if not worse. Some of you are a very insensitive bunch of people with no respect. However, having nearly drowned while sailing, I think I have something to say about the safety issues, which is why I got involved with looking at safety with the 18's.

 

And to all of those who say Bart would have wanted it to go on, I say that is an empty sentiment which misses the point because I would bet anything that, considering how many of his close friends are sailing these boats, his number one thought would be that everything must be done to ensure nobody else dies in this manner.

Have to agree about the 18s simon.

 

Had two close calls on the 18. A lifejacket would have killed me in the second one. I cant swim (can tread water but thats about it) but I would never wear a lifejacket on an 18 or a cat.

FWIW, I wouldn't wear a lifejacket on an 18 but I wouldn't sail without one on a cat, and if offered the chance to sail on an AC72, I would also want a lifejacket. Although there is a chance of getting caught under a beach cat, the real issue is that when on their side, they drift downwind at speed. There is a real risk of being separated. I nearly got separated from my A in a capsize because of drift but fortunately I managed to grab the trailing mainsheet, which was too long and I had forgotten to cut down to size! On the AC72, while I know there are chase boats, if you go overboard at speed in SF Bay, I think you want a lifejacket. In the event of a capsize, I would imagine there is as much chance of being injured falling as there is of being trapped and as such, the benefits of extra floatation seem to me to out way those of being trapped due to too much floatation.

 

Don't forget the pfd also works as body armor if the sailor his something hard/sharp.



#6438 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,301 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:32 PM

And to all of those who say Bart would have wanted it to go on, I say that is an empty sentiment which misses the point because I would bet anything that, considering how many of his close friends are sailing these boats, his number one thought would be that everything must be done to ensure nobody else dies in this manner.

 

Well said, Simon.

 

It's not even the risk to the sailors' lives - it's the risk to the lives of those that they leave behind.

 

At every big moment in their lives, Bart's child (I think he just left one?) and wife will probably feel the loss again. On his first day at school, when he gets his first Opti, his first job, his wedding - there will be an enormous gap in life, just so boats could get back to the line they started from earlier. It's not worth it.

 

And thinking about safety is not namby-pamby stuff - it's simple respect for the people who will spend a lifetime bereft if someone dies. Formula 1 cars have not had a death for many years - F1 sailing should be the same.

 

You can have progress without death - the Wright Brothers designed their testing programme to be safe so that they would NOT suffer the fate of their hero, Lilienthal. They realised that progress comes with life, not death.



#6439 Terrafirma

Terrafirma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:42 PM

Thats a chilling story to say the least. I know they can't carry bigger bottles but I think they need something more substantial. If some of the other teams have divers ready then perhaps this is what they need to do.? So sad.

These details are horrifying, if true.  Excerpt from Newcastle Herald story based on an interview with Nathan Outteridge's father: 

"A quick head count revealed one member of the crew was missing – Andrew Simpson – triggering a desperate search.

The British two-time Olympic gold medallist was trapped underwater, wedged underneath ‘‘a few tonnes’’ of carbon fibre, frantically trying to free himself.

His crew members could see him, fighting for his life and dived beneath the water to try to set him free.

They  handed the man they called ‘‘Bart’’ emergency oxygen bottles – which hold about 10 breaths each – in a bid to keep him alive in the hope rescue crews would arrive in time.

They didn’t."

http://www.theherald...capsize/?cs=303



#6440 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,301 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:43 PM

The V5 AC class boats were pretty dangerous and could easily have claimed more lives. And the 12m class before it. 

 

There were about 98 IACC boats that raced over a period of about 18 years with one death and two sinkings.

 

There were about 100 (at a guess) 12 Metres that raced over a period of about 90 years (actually, they are still going) with (IIRC) one death - Cowes Week about 1935 when the 130' Lulworth rammed a 12 - and one or two sinkings (counting Trivia which went down mid-Atlantic at 50 years of age).

 

There were about 13 J Class (including converted boats) that raced over a period of about 13 years with (IIRC) one death (Endeavour 1 or Shamrock J in a dismasting) and no sinkings. That included years of racing on the UK regatta circuit in close quarters.

 

There were probably 20 Linear/Universal rule America's Cup boats of about 130' LOA that raced for about 20 years with (IIRC) one death  and one sinking (in a collision between Satanita and Valkyrie). That also included years of UK regatta racing.

 

There have been 4 AC72s that have still not raced, with two boats lost and one death.

 

The stats are incredibly AGAINST the AC 72s.

 

The same applies to Murray's remarks about Low Speed Chase. There are thousands of offshore racing boats and the death toll is very low. There are four AC72s and the toll is enormously high, in comparison.



#6441 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,301 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:48 PM

fireball,

 

 

Your statement implying that these sailors do not understand the risk involved is an absolute insult to intelligence of these skilled and competitive guys.

 

These are not Hobie 16s.  

 

These boats are very big, very fast and very powerful.  Each is basically a "new from scratch"  design for the type of sailing involved.

 

The whole "wearing helmets" and other similar provisions just go to underscore the risks involved. 

 

In many competitive sports, there is an element of risk.  Very rarely will you find that the participants are not aware of it.

 

And it is pretty obvious that most of posters trying to jump in with the "this shows that big wing sail cats were a bad choice" theme, are really just sore about the change in format for reasons other than those stated.  

 

Be real and be honest.  This AC was an attempt to have "the fastest boats and the fastest sailors".  The choices were made by people trying to achieve a more exiting level of sailing.  Big cats with wings was not a bad choice.  Mistakes have been made.  So what.  We are all human.  

 

If you seriously think that humans can push the limits of sailing like these teams have without taking chances and without making mistakes, you should apply for a job with OSHA (or its equivalent in you country).  This is the kind of thinking that tends to end up with all of those Government (OSHA for the US) rules that are so completely out of touch with the real world.

 

To say without evidence that people who are concerned about the dangers are "just sore about the change in format" is pretty damn silly. Plenty of SAers know AC sailors and their families - aren't they allowed to be concerned about the risks?

 

Of course you can push the limits with low risk. AC boats have been pushing the limit for decades with very, very low risks. 18 Foot Skiff sailors, Moth sailors and windsurfers all push the limit without one death in 50 hours of sailing.

 

And some of those who are for safety are very much in touch with the real world.

 

It's the real world where we go to memorial services for teens who have been lost sailing, and look at parents who have lost both their children.

 

It's the real world where kids we sailed with are seen sobbing uncontrollably as we mourn their father, lost sailing.

 

It's the real world when we can no longer sail with a friend because he died on his boat.

 

It's the real world where people grow up without fathers because of accidents in sailing.

 

If you inhabited this all-too-real world you may understand why safety is more important than sailing fast or getting better TV.

 

I don't know what you do for a job, but I spent years investigating accidents and yes, I DO like some rules that make things safe because the consequences are horrible.  I've also spent years sailing fast and there are plenty of ways to do that without the accident rate we are currently seeing.

 

Are you going to say "Mistakes have been made. So what" to Simpson's family and his crewmates who fought to keep him alive? The "what" in this case is not something that is so easily shrugged off. 



#6442 Love2Sail

Love2Sail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Location:Iowa city, Iowa

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:01 PM

Thats a chilling story to say the least. I know they can't carry bigger bottles but I think they need something more substantial. If some of the other teams have divers ready then perhaps this is what they need to do.? So sad.

 

These details are horrifying, if true.  Excerpt from Newcastle Herald story based on an interview with Nathan Outteridge's father: 

"A quick head count revealed one member of the crew was missing – Andrew Simpson – triggering a desperate search.

The British two-time Olympic gold medallist was trapped underwater, wedged underneath ‘‘a few tonnes’’ of carbon fibre, frantically trying to free himself.

His crew members could see him, fighting for his life and dived beneath the water to try to set him free.

They  handed the man they called ‘‘Bart’’ emergency oxygen bottles – which hold about 10 breaths each – in a bid to keep him alive in the hope rescue crews would arrive in time.

They didn’t."

http://www.theherald...capsize/?cs=303

This is a terrible story if true.  Not just for the facts of what happened but also because it is so very different from what Ian Murray said in the press conference yesterday.  Looking forward to the facts coming out from the inquiry.  I for one would like to wait before jumping to any conclusions.



#6443 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,030 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:23 PM

any news on where the boat is now? is it still on Treasure island or back at the base?

 

It was lifted out of the water and placed in a hangar on Treasure Island to await investigators.

 

I saw some brief video of it being lifted, but it wasn't long or clear enough to provide a better idea of the current state of the boat.  B-roll, if you're familiar with the broadcast term.

 

Artemis may have been allowed to collect their wing - but that's unclear

 

Photos are here... http://www.pressure-...6-Artemis-Rises



#6444 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:24 PM

The emotional toll has to be crushing.

Practically, even if they do have W3 ready to go for Boat 2, then will they have any confidence or assurances that it is any safer of a boat?

AR has a big decision to make. Hopefully facts about how things broke will be included in the equation.

#6445 Enzedel 92

Enzedel 92

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,776 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:31 PM

The emotional toll has to be crushing.

Practically, even if they do have W3 ready to go for Boat 2, then will they have any confidence or assurances that it is any safer of a boat?

AR has a big decision to make. Hopefully facts about how things broke will be included in the equation.

 

There is no doubt AR will forge ahead with a sharpened sense of urgency.  As they should so Simpsons death wouldnt be in vain.



#6446 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,030 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:37 PM

The emotional toll has to be crushing.

Practically, even if they do have W3 ready to go for Boat 2, then will they have any confidence or assurances that it is any safer of a boat?

AR has a big decision to make. Hopefully facts about how things broke will be included in the equation.

 

Within the team there must already be a pretty clear idea about any shortcomings within the structure of B1 and knowledge of the differences built into B2.

So they should have something to go on confidence-wise re the new boat.

Wings - MM has mentioned and photographed the repaired W1 (usable??) and the in-use W2, now damaged to an unknown extent - but nothing else (W3) has been mentioned by MM or the team AFAIK.

But crushed as you say at the moment and this stuff will have to wait



#6447 Tony-F18

Tony-F18

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,308 posts
  • Location:+31

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:39 PM

I dont know the details of the AC72 certification process but having structures tested/measured by an external party might be a good idea (This could even be ACRM).

I think the measurers already do some of this but I'm not sure they can check laminate thicknesses and other datapoints which could be relevant (Like they do in the VOR).

 

What really bothers me is that people are mixing up two issues here.

Oracle's PP was a sailing accident, but AR accident seems to be much more of a construction/engineering issue and the two should not be confused.



#6448 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,030 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:59 PM

There is little if anything in the rule regarding 'scantlings', so nothing much for the MC to check in that regard. Where to spend the weight budget has been the designers concern with this rule



#6449 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:05 PM

^ Bingo.

Maybe there is a greater role for the MC to play, some additional scantlings-type requirements introduced.

If whatever went wrong on B1 is built the same way on B2, and if it was an issue with a structure as large as the front beam, well.. Time may have run out.

#6450 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:08 PM

Are you guys still speculating or are there more facts available now than yesterday?



#6451 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:13 PM

Are you guys still speculating or are there more facts available now than yesterday?

Still speculating. We still don't know the initial failure point, let alone the ensuing chain.

As time goes on the conversation will naturally turn increasingly towards what impact it will have on Artemis, ACRM, even the event.

#6452 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,136 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:20 PM

Every sport has its risks, and its tragedies. It also has its naysayers that scream about the dangers and how it should be changed or stopped.

 

When studied and reviewed after a period of reflection the proper changes can be made that will keep the sport viable, and hopefully reduce the risks and dangers that are encountered.

 

This will happen here as many of those involved have been exposed to tragedy in sailing, including LE who was in the SH himself the year that had the bad storm and lives were lost. Tragedy has touched many of the current AC players over the years, and they will have solemn reflection and determination to not have this sad situation reoccur.

 

Now, we should all stand behind them and give our support to this effort.



#6453 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,030 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:22 PM

Are you guys still speculating or are there more facts available now than yesterday?

 

Facts? Enough to satisfy everyone - obviously not, but eyewitness reports from the people aboard, that match both the wreckage and the history are pretty clear signposts.

It will be interesting to see at what point the apparent becomes accepted fact - reminds me already of the 'is foiling faster' year.

If no one had been killed I'm not sure there would be such reticence, but even so, Sail-World, Wired and the SF and Australian newspapers are stating things pretty clearly already

 

http://www.sfexamine...ed-broke-pieces

http://www.theherald...capsize/?cs=303



#6454 Xlot

Xlot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,687 posts
  • Location:Rome

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:25 PM

Within the team there must already be a pretty clear idea about any shortcomings within the structure of B1 and knowledge of the differences built into B2.
So they should have something to go on confidence-wise re the new boat.


No - there's the rub. AR's designers never coalesced into a team: everybody's clinging to his precious job for the duration, CYA / finger pointing mode, I-do-as-i'm-told and no questioning of inputs

#6455 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:30 PM

Are you guys still speculating or are there more facts available now than yesterday?

 

Facts? Enough to satisfy everyone - obviously not, but eyewitness reports from the people aboard, that match both the wreckage and the history are pretty clear signposts.

It will be interesting to see at what point the apparent becomes accepted fact - reminds me already of the 'is foiling faster' year.

If no one had been killed I'm not sure there would be such reticence, but even so Sail-World, Wired and the SF newspapers are stating things pretty clearly already

 

Thanks. I was just curious, if I've missed something really "proving" the first impressions/witness accounts in all the posts from yesterday evening to today, but apparently not.



#6456 blunted

blunted

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Boats with wings are cool, just plain cool

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:32 PM

 

 

 

I don't think these sailors want to be in an extreme sport. Most of them don't get paid much at all. They want to go sailing and have fun and go home safely. They're not F1 drivers getting paid millions of dollars and going at death defying speeds.  And with the current AC boats, it's probably safer to drive a racing car than to go sailing. That's just crazy!

They don't get paid much at all? Are you kidding me? Top team top sailors are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do as you say, what they love and have fun at. Closer to the back of the boat the numbers are even higher. This is the pinnacle of the sport, they are paid accordingly. These guys are not showing up for a T-shirt and a beer after racing.

 

As for wanting to be in an extreme sport, well, any single one of them can say NO, and leave the team. Last I checked every time a new boat hits the water most of what you hear about is the huge shit eating grins of the crew at the "amazing performance" of the boats. Sure the performance is scary, but the big boys get paid the big bucks to tame the big beasts and to chase the big prize. That is the point of the exercise.

 

What's the first rule of sailing? It's every sailors and skippers responsibility to determine if they should even be on the water at all in the first place or if they should continue to race / sail etc. We all make that choice every time we go on the water, we all (Should be anyhow) assessing the risks and deciding if its what we should do on any given day. Part of that assessment is understanding what happens or can happen when it goes pear shaped. what supports are in place, what is the worst that can happen etc. There are of course no guarantees that things will unfold without ill consequence even with fantastic safety mechanisms in place, such is life.

 

Flados is correct in my opinion that it is insulting to think that somehow the small boat sailors were magically unaware of the TRUE risk of sailing boats like this. Bullshit. they are pros who are able to understand what is going on complete with a reasonable assesment of risk.

 

To be sure it is tragic that a life was lost, it's an outcome nobody wants to see, least of all Mr Simpsons wife and child, but again it is all part of the risk assessment that every sailor must make, every day they sail. Every time I sail my wife reminds me not to get killed, it is an explicit ackowledgement on her part that death by boat is a distinct possibility, if somewhat remote, but a possibility nevertheless. I remind her of the same thing when she goes off to sail.

 

We as sailors have a responsibility to look out for our bretheren on the water, I take that responsibility seriously and I rely on others to do the same. I would rather have people on the water around me who have a realistic understanding of the risks and not an, "I told you so attiitude"



#6457 idontwan2know

idontwan2know

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,794 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:33 PM

Within the team there must already be a pretty clear idea about any shortcomings within the structure of B1 and knowledge of the differences built into B2.
So they should have something to go on confidence-wise re the new boat.


No - there's the rub. AR's designers never coalesced into a team: everybody's clinging to his precious job for the duration, CYA / finger pointing mode, I-do-as-i'm-told and no questioning of inputs

 

The lack of design team cohesiveness and fingerpointing seem to be common occurrences when JuanKer is involved.



#6458 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:33 PM



Within the team there must already be a pretty clear idea about any shortcomings within the structure of B1 and knowledge of the differences built into B2.
So they should have something to go on confidence-wise re the new boat.

No - there's the rub. AR's designers never coalesced into a team: everybody's clinging to his precious job for the duration, CYA / finger pointing mode, I-do-as-i'm-told and no questioning of inputs
Even if that were true then nav's point is still a pertinent one. And even if they don't 'already' have a pretty clear idea then they surely 'will' get the facts to make decisions upon, regardless any designers' supposed motivations.

Here again is how IM put it
--
"All we know is that the boat ended up capsized, the hulls upside down, broken in half, said Murray. The split seconds from when the boat was sailing upwind to the pictures that weve all seen (of the boat turned upside down and broken apart), theres a gap in there and thats what we need to fill in and find out what happened."
--

And so the failure chain is going to get understood one way or the other.

#6459 Love2Sail

Love2Sail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Location:Iowa city, Iowa

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:45 PM

Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover

- Mark Twain, author



#6460 Bootscooter

Bootscooter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:Oxford, UK

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:55 PM

These details are horrifying, if true.  Excerpt from Newcastle Herald story based on an interview with Nathan Outteridge's father: 

"A quick head count revealed one member of the crew was missing – Andrew Simpson – triggering a desperate search.

The British two-time Olympic gold medallist was trapped underwater, wedged underneath ‘‘a few tonnes’’ of carbon fibre, frantically trying to free himself.

His crew members could see him, fighting for his life and dived beneath the water to try to set him free.

They  handed the man they called ‘‘Bart’’ emergency oxygen bottles – which hold about 10 breaths each – in a bid to keep him alive in the hope rescue crews would arrive in time.

They didn’t."

http://www.theherald...capsize/?cs=303

 

Oh FFS.  I wish to God I'd never read that. I've told my 14 yr old son, who worships Bart and Iain after spending some time with them at WPNSA back in '11, that in all likelihood he'd have been knocked unconscious in the crash, and that was why he'd drowned - not knowing about it.  I'll not be telling him different.

Bart was a top, top bloke - we're all devastated in this household, but this is nothing to what his family, friends and crew must be going through.  Our thoughts are with them.



#6461 Kahlessa

Kahlessa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 414 posts
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Books, history, science, adventure, discovering life's hidden secrets

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:04 PM

 

These details are horrifying, if true.  Excerpt from Newcastle Herald story based on an interview with Nathan Outteridge's father: 

"A quick head count revealed one member of the crew was missing – Andrew Simpson – triggering a desperate search.

The British two-time Olympic gold medallist was trapped underwater, wedged underneath ‘‘a few tonnes’’ of carbon fibre, frantically trying to free himself.

His crew members could see him, fighting for his life and dived beneath the water to try to set him free.

They  handed the man they called ‘‘Bart’’ emergency oxygen bottles – which hold about 10 breaths each – in a bid to keep him alive in the hope rescue crews would arrive in time.

They didn’t."

http://www.theherald...capsize/?cs=303

 

Oh FFS.  I wish to God I'd never read that. I've told my 14 yr old son, who worships Bart and Iain after spending some time with them at WPNSA back in '11, that in all likelihood he'd have been knocked unconscious in the crash, and that was why he'd drowned - not knowing about it.  I'll not be telling him different.

Bart was a top, top bloke - we're all devastated in this household, but this is nothing to what his family, friends and crew must be going through.  Our thoughts are with them.

Such a tragedy. And only time can provide some answers and help the healing.



#6462 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,722 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:18 PM

FWIW, I wouldn't wear a lifejacket on an 18 but I wouldn't sail without one on a cat, and if offered the chance to sail on an AC72, I would also want a lifejacket. Although there is a chance of getting caught under a beach cat, the real issue is that when on their side, they drift downwind at speed. There is a real risk of being separated. I nearly got separated from my A in a capsize because of drift but fortunately I managed to grab the trailing mainsheet, which was too long and I had forgotten to cut down to size! On the AC72, while I know there are chase boats, if you go overboard at speed in SF Bay, I think you want a lifejacket. In the event of a capsize, I would imagine there is as much chance of being injured falling as there is of being trapped and as such, the benefits of extra floatation seem to me to out way those of being trapped due to too much floatation.

Not often that we agree but I fully do it here.

Once, after a PP in a huge gust, I nearly got separated from my boat and, by swimming as much as I could just succed to get the tip of the mast and came back to the boat cutting my hands on the shrouds.

 

However I do keep my life jacket as a physical protection. After breaking a couple of ribs and arm injuries, I find the lifejacket is a good protection



#6463 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:24 PM

A must read for AC fans, according to TE:

 

http://www.nytimes.c...anted=all&_r=1



#6464 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,722 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:39 PM

A must read for AC fans, according to TE:

 

http://www.nytimes.c...anted=all&_r=1

Very good article, thanks Rennmaus

 

 

"Murray also will try to determine if these new and spectacular multihulls, capable of speeds exceeding 40 knots, are safe and stable enough in their existing form to allow the America’s Cup preliminaries to go ahead as planned on July 5 with the challenger series known as the Vuitton Cup.

Stephen Barclay, chief executive officer of the America’s Cup event authority, did not rule out significant changes, even cancellation."



#6465 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:50 PM

A must read for AC fans, according to TE:
 
http://www.nytimes.c...anted=all&_r=1

Well crafted article.

This one is also new:

What Happened?
http://www.yachtingw...y-what-happened

#6466 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:53 PM

Can't watch video ATM, maybe nothing new in it...

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50146602n



#6467 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:55 PM

From this one: http://www.telegraph...-is-killed.html

....
Reacting to her sons death, Simpsons mother, Pamela, 69, said: It was the design of the boat - its just totally different to the Americas Cup boat.

His father, Keith, 70, added: It is too early to say. He said parts of Artemis Racing seemed to have disintegrated after the capsize.

Mr Simpson said: "No one knows what the problem is. They are going to do that in America. Health and safety are going to have a look at it. It needs to be fully investigated."

Asked if his son had expressed any concerns about the handling of the vessel, Mr Simpson, said: "He did at the beginning, but he was enjoying it. He was just sitting on the wrong place of the boat. The wrong place at the wrong time. He was doing something he loved - that's fair to say."

The couple, from Windlesham, in Surrey, paid tribute to their wonderful son. Mr Simpson said: I couldnt be more proud or him and everything he achieved. He was a wonderful son and father.

Simpson, who lived in Sherborne, Dorset, had recently moved to San Francisco with his wife Leah and their two sons, aged three and six months. The family planned to stay there for the duration of the contest. Mrs Simpson said her daughter-in-law, who has flown back to the UK, was in pieces .
cntd

#6468 Doug Lord

Doug Lord

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,774 posts
  • Location:Cocoa Beach, FL
  • Interests:Foiler design and development,.........sailing fast,
    movable ballast systems and..... justice.

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:55 PM

Cancellation of the Americas Cup would compound the tragedy and would be a travesty for all those that have invested so much to take sailing to the incredible level represented by these extraordinary sailing machines.

Read "Blunted's" post-6459......



#6469 Finnfart

Finnfart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:56 PM

 

 

James Boyd at the The Daily Sail is always good value.  It sounds as if he was plugged into the media conference today, or got some additional quotes later.  Here, a sample of his article today:

 

Bernie Wilson from AP asked the not unreasonable question – “after two capsizes and one death – are these boats too dangerous?” While Stephen Barclay ducked this, referring to the future publication of Murray’s investigation, Murray put the incident into context: “There have been a lot of fatalities. There were five off San Francisco last year and that wasn’t judged to be too dangerous and ocean racing has continued since. Larry Klein the 1989 Rolex Yachtsman of the Year drowned after simply falling overboard in San Francisco Bay in 1994. I was involved in the Sydney Hobart race when six people died. We have to live with these things and we have to go forward in the best way that we can. The AC72s are progressing sailing. We have come a long way from the 12m with cotton sails to Kevlar sails or carbon fibre masts or five rounds of the ACCs boats. It is progress. It is what these guys want to do - they want to take sailing to the next level and these boats provide that platform.”

 

Premium access is Members Only, but worth it.  You can sign up for a month's free access.

 

 

This is a very interesting quote from Iain Murray. If that's their attitude then I think it has to be put in a brutally honest way to the sailors so they can make up their own minds.

 

Murray is saying that the AC is now a dangerous sport like ocean racing and there will be accidents and deaths from time to time. This is a big change from the AC in the past which was a fairly safe sport just involving day sailing about the buoys in keelboats.

 

Maybe that's fine for some of the sailors who have done VORs or other long offshore races, but there's now a bunch of small boat sailors who are in demand for the AC because they have experience foiling or sailing high performance boats. Do these guys want to risk their lives in a sailing boat race? There's a different mindset between things like offshore and inshore racing and accepting the extra level of risk is not for everyone.

 

And how many times have JS and others openly cited the risks involved ?

 

While a very unfortunate situation has taken place, recognition of the inherent risk is not the issue. Realizing the circumstances maybe, but not recognition.

 

 

I don't think it was discussed enough when the format of the AC was changed.

 

Sailing in the AC prior to 2007 wasn't really any more dangerous that working in a factory where you had to operate heavy equipment.

 

The ACWS was also reasonably safe. Boats pitchpoled and the crew didn't want to land on the wing because it would damage the wing.

 

But the AC72s are an extreme sport. The boats can pitchpole and some of the crew could be falling from the height of a 3 or 4 story building. If they hit something hard there's a good chance they'll be killed. These guys are not even using tethers. Talk about gungho!

 

Everybody is welcome to make their own choices, but I wouldn't sail on these boats.

If for some reason you are offered a spot on one of these boats, Please give me a call so I can fill in for you.

 

I'll in exchange give you a reservation at a nursing home and we both should be happy.

 

Best to spend your life living than simply postponing dying.... imo.



#6470 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:16 PM

Can't watch video ATM, maybe nothing new in it...
 
http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50146602n

Nothing 'new' but a decent enough report.

This video includes a short clip of NO's father speaking: http://abclocal.go.c...ll&section=null

The media coverage has been about as big this time as it was for the OR pitchpole in October, it's all over and in even my local papers. Being as it involves a fatality this time the flavor has a distinctly more 'controversial' edge to it.

#6471 BLam

BLam

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:27 PM

The V5 AC class boats were pretty dangerous and could easily have claimed more lives. And the 12m class before it. 

 

There were about 98 IACC boats that raced over a period of about 18 years with one death and two sinkings.

 

There were about 100 (at a guess) 12 Metres that raced over a period of about 90 years (actually, they are still going) with (IIRC) one death - Cowes Week about 1935 when the 130' Lulworth rammed a 12 - and one or two sinkings (counting Trivia which went down mid-Atlantic at 50 years of age).

 

There were about 13 J Class (including converted boats) that raced over a period of about 13 years with (IIRC) one death (Endeavour 1 or Shamrock J in a dismasting) and no sinkings. That included years of racing on the UK regatta circuit in close quarters.

 

There were probably 20 Linear/Universal rule America's Cup boats of about 130' LOA that raced for about 20 years with (IIRC) one death  and one sinking (in a collision between Satanita and Valkyrie). That also included years of UK regatta racing.

 

There have been 4 AC72s that have still not raced, with two boats lost and one death.

 

The stats are incredibly AGAINST the AC 72s.

 

The same applies to Murray's remarks about Low Speed Chase. There are thousands of offshore racing boats and the death toll is very low. There are four AC72s and the toll is enormously high, in comparison.

To date there have been 168 sailing days on the AC 72's. Data from the AC website.

 

Oracle 1:       8 days

Oracle 1B:   26 days

Oracle 2:       5 days

Artemis 1:    36 days

TNZ 1:         30 days

TNZ 2:         20 days

Prada:         43 days



#6472 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:30 PM

Can't watch video ATM, maybe nothing new in it...
 
http://www.cbsnews.c...h/?id=50146602n

Nothing 'new' but a decent enough report.

This video includes a short clip of NO's father speaking: http://abclocal.go.c...ll&section=null

The media coverage has been about as big this time as it was for the OR pitchpole in October, it's all over and in even my local papers. Being as it involves a fatality this time the flavor has a distinctly more 'controversial' edge to it.

 

Definitely bigger. It's all over in the online versions of major German newspapers, that usually don't care at all about this AC. Don't know for sure but assume that the print versions will at least have a short note in the sports section.



#6473 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:43 PM

^ Probably as true here.

This AP story is widespread now, but I have not found the supposed interview referred to

--
SAN FRANCISCO The head of the Americas Cup planning effort says he expects sailings most prestigious event to go forward after the death of a sailor on a training run in the San Francisco Bay.

In an interview Saturday morning, Stephen Barclay said he would await the results of an internal examination of Thursdays accident before making the formal decision.

Andrew Bart Simpson was killed when he was trapped under the wreckage of the Artemis Racing sailboat that capsized during a training run. Barclay said investigators are expected to announce a probable cause of the wreck early next week.

The three teams vying to challenge Oracle Racing for sailings most prestigious trophy are scheduled to begin racing in July.

#6474 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:57 PM

The V5 AC class boats were pretty dangerous and could easily have claimed more lives. And the 12m class before it. 

 

There were about 98 IACC boats that raced over a period of about 18 years with one death and two sinkings.

 

There were about 100 (at a guess) 12 Metres that raced over a period of about 90 years (actually, they are still going) with (IIRC) one death - Cowes Week about 1935 when the 130' Lulworth rammed a 12 - and one or two sinkings (counting Trivia which went down mid-Atlantic at 50 years of age).

 

There were about 13 J Class (including converted boats) that raced over a period of about 13 years with (IIRC) one death (Endeavour 1 or Shamrock J in a dismasting) and no sinkings. That included years of racing on the UK regatta circuit in close quarters.

 

There were probably 20 Linear/Universal rule America's Cup boats of about 130' LOA that raced for about 20 years with (IIRC) one death  and one sinking (in a collision between Satanita and Valkyrie). That also included years of UK regatta racing.

 

There have been 4 AC72s that have still not raced, with two boats lost and one death.

 

The stats are incredibly AGAINST the AC 72s.

 

The same applies to Murray's remarks about Low Speed Chase. There are thousands of offshore racing boats and the death toll is very low. There are four AC72s and the toll is enormously high, in comparison.

 

First of all, my condolences to Andrew Simpson's family for their loss.

 

 

 

 

Chris,

 

your post is very useful in thinking about the issues. The sailor's lost during a century of America's Cup racing have been from monohull sailing. The choice to go to multis is the biggest change imaginable and dealing with safety issues on the multis is a new challenge for the teams.

 

I would like to think there will be equipment and safety protocols developed after the last crashes that will render the racing somewhat safer than it would appear it currently is. 

 

The sailors themselves should have the last word on this and in time I'm sure they will.



#6475 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:14 PM

^ I expect that one of the coming recommendations from ACRM to ACEA we will see is something that IM seemed to allude to, more 'organized' training sessions with coordinated, additional safety measures including official chase boats; possibly even medivac helicopters on standby. I think LR's PB was referring to wanting much the same assurances.

Barclay may not like the pricetag but it would make safety sense.

#6476 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,338 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:27 PM

^ I expect that one of the coming recommendations from ACRM to ACEA we will see is something that IM seemed to allude to, more 'organized' training sessions with coordinated, additional safety measures including official chase boats; possibly even medivac helicopters on standby. I think LR's PB was referring to wanting much the same assurances.

Barclay may not like the pricetag but it would make safety sense.

 

 

Hydroplane Racing has Medevac Helicopters on standby

 

admittedly they travel Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster 

 

​buy the pilots are in Crush/Fire Proof Fighter-Jet Capsules and Breath Bottled AIR 100% of the time

 

And the Budgets & # of Racers are far less than the AC

 

 

But a Medevac Helicopter would Not have helped Bart  :( 



#6477 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:56 PM

Not sure the timing but from
http://m.nzherald.co...jectid=10883078

"Artemis team chairman Torbjorn Tornqvist is said to be on his way to San Francisco for a team meeting that may decide Artemis' future."

#6478 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,145 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:03 PM

What really bothers me is that people are mixing up two issues here.

Oracle's PP was a sailing accident, but AR accident seems to be much more of a construction/engineering issue and the two should not be confused.

Google "Root Cause Fallacy". . . . an important concept in accident investigation and resulting safety/quality systems.

 

We have here a vessel (AC72) operating essentially all the time on the edge.  Mistakes of many kinds (sailing, construction, design, etc) will lead to catastrophic failure. And humans make mistakes, they are inevitable.  You need to build (enough) safety factors into the system to allow for these mistakes.  The current track record is suggesting (of course with very low formal statistical significance) the 72's don't have enough safety factor built in for the likely human error rate. 

 

Gary Jobson asked  a group of us what was behind the recent spate of deaths in offshore sailing.  My answer was that  offshore sailing used to, as a fundamental matter of seamanship, built significant safety factors into almost every aspect (from the fundamental scantlings to the amount of food carried), but that these safety factors had all been progressively shaved to zero by the aggressive (and increasingly professionally driven/influenced) end of the fleet.  The fact that the different incidents had different immediate causes (LSC too shallow water in too big waves, Rambler keel failure, wingnuts too aggressive wings with too low stability, etc) was an indication and symptoms of the underlying safety factors and limits being shaved across the board.  The AC72's are just simply the most extreme possible example of this development.

 

As to the concept of the sailors knowing and 'accepting' the risk . . . . it is generally the case that people in a profession think 'it is what it is' and that it cannot be changed or improved, and that they have a good paying job and they will not give it up.  That's what I hear in Ian's initial comments.  This usually goes on until one leading figure stands up and says it has to change (as in F1), or an outside authority steps in (like USCG or OSHA) and puts workplace safety rules in force.  It would be much better for all us in the sport of sailing if it were the first (sailor led) rather than the second (government led). Those of you offshore sailing is SF will know that the USCG has recently been edging into greater regulation of sailing and the last thing you need or want is the USCG having to do yet another sailing death investigation.



#6479 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,722 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:09 PM



 

What really bothers me is that people are mixing up two issues here.

Oracle's PP was a sailing accident, but AR accident seems to be much more of a construction/engineering issue and the two should not be confused.

What bothers me is that some sailors are mixing different causes to a same problem.

Have a look at the Ishikawa diagram.

fishbone.jpg



#6480 Te Kooti

Te Kooti

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,436 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:15 PM

According to the brother of a current AC sailor (today), there are real concerns about:
1) wearing inflatable life vests and getting stuck under the boat.
2) the 2 minute limit of air.
 
Of interest is that a number of current skiff sailors in 18's and 16's on Sydney Harbour don't like wearing life vests as they prevent you from being able to swim out from under the rig in the event of a capsize to windward.

That is why you should wear a "manual" (not an auto) inflate PFD.

Entrapment is a huge issue in fisheries and many other places.

And is why manufacturers have responded by providing different types of PFD.

#6481 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,467 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:22 PM

There is a more detailed accounting of the incident here;

 

http://www.pressure-...Crew-Hurt/page6



#6482 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,722 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:33 PM

Awful :

"The British two-time Olympic gold medallist was trapped underwater, wedged underneath ‘‘a few tonnes’’ of carbon fibre, frantically trying to free himself.

His crew members could see him, fighting for his life and dived beneath the water to try to set him free.

They handed the man they called ‘‘Bart’’ emergency oxygen bottles – which hold about 10 breaths each – in a bid to keep him alive in the hope rescue crews would arrive in time.
"

 

 

How couldn't the rescue divers come faster ?



#6483 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,757 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:36 PM

Not sure the timing but from
http://m.nzherald.co...jectid=10883078

"Artemis team chairman Torbjorn Tornqvist is said to be on his way to San Francisco for a team meeting that may decide Artemis' future."

 

Another opinion from NZ:

 

http://www.3news.co....77/Default.aspx



#6484 atwinda

atwinda

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 499 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:46 PM

A brief thought on some prevention measures others have suggested-

 

strobes wont be very effective during the day (when ac 72s are racing)

dye wouldn't be effective unless the person was submerged

manual inflate/auto inflate- double edged sword, if you go in unconscious you want the auto, if you go in conscious, but under something wide or deep, you want manual. I doubt there will ever be a perfect solution to that.

 

I think the only decent way to locate someone quickly (in this case) would be an infrared camera. I'd bet most parts of the boats wouldn't register very high being carbon, but the body of a sailor at peak heart rate would probably show up pretty quickly. I doubt you would carry it onboard the 72, but have it on the rescue boat with the divers. Hell, maybe they already have that.

 

I truly hope cooler heads prevail and no rash actions are taken against the teams or event. canceling the event based off the supposed negligence of a structural engineering team from a singular team would be a bit pathetic.  



#6485 Monster Mash

Monster Mash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,725 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:49 PM

Big Red has returned to  Camp Artemis. 

They just pushed her in the hanger minutes ago.



#6486 zillafreak

zillafreak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Location:Newport Beach

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:53 PM

Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover

- Mark Twain, author

 

My new signature. Mark Twain actually never said this, but I like it anyway. Appropriate.



#6487 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:56 PM

^ Is there such thing as an auto-inflate PFD that also has a manual release/exhaust ripcord?

Sure sounds like he got trapped, from the accounts so far anyway.

#6488 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:58 PM

Big Red has returned to  Camp Artemis. 
They just pushed her in the hanger minutes ago.

Thanks. Was the wing returned before now?

#6489 P Flados

P Flados

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:06 PM

fireball,

 

 

Your statement implying that these sailors do not understand the risk involved is an absolute insult to intelligence of these skilled and competitive guys.

 

These are not Hobie 16s.  

 

These boats are very big, very fast and very powerful.  Each is basically a "new from scratch"  design for the type of sailing involved.

 

The whole "wearing helmets" and other similar provisions just go to underscore the risks involved. 

 

In many competitive sports, there is an element of risk.  Very rarely will you find that the participants are not aware of it.

 

And it is pretty obvious that most of posters trying to jump in with the "this shows that big wing sail cats were a bad choice" theme, are really just sore about the change in format for reasons other than those stated.  

 

Be real and be honest.  This AC was an attempt to have "the fastest boats and the fastest sailors".  The choices were made by people trying to achieve a more exiting level of sailing.  Big cats with wings was not a bad choice.  Mistakes have been made.  So what.  We are all human.  

 

If you seriously think that humans can push the limits of sailing like these teams have without taking chances and without making mistakes, you should apply for a job with OSHA (or its equivalent in you country).  This is the kind of thinking that tends to end up with all of those Government (OSHA for the US) rules that are so completely out of touch with the real world.

 

To say without evidence that people who are concerned about the dangers are "just sore about the change in format" is pretty damn silly. Plenty of SAers know AC sailors and their families - aren't they allowed to be concerned about the risks?

 

Of course you can push the limits with low risk. AC boats have been pushing the limit for decades with very, very low risks. 18 Foot Skiff sailors, Moth sailors and windsurfers all push the limit without one death in 50 hours of sailing.

 

And some of those who are for safety are very much in touch with the real world.

 

It's the real world where we go to memorial services for teens who have been lost sailing, and look at parents who have lost both their children.

 

It's the real world where kids we sailed with are seen sobbing uncontrollably as we mourn their father, lost sailing.

 

It's the real world when we can no longer sail with a friend because he died on his boat.

 

It's the real world where people grow up without fathers because of accidents in sailing.

 

If you inhabited this all-too-real world you may understand why safety is more important than sailing fast or getting better TV.

 

I don't know what you do for a job, but I spent years investigating accidents and yes, I DO like some rules that make things safe because the consequences are horrible.  I've also spent years sailing fast and there are plenty of ways to do that without the accident rate we are currently seeing.

 

Are you going to say "Mistakes have been made. So what" to Simpson's family and his crewmates who fought to keep him alive? The "what" in this case is not something that is so easily shrugged off. 

 

Just for the record, I am a big fan of:

  • good engineering,
  • good structural testing (should probably be mandated to be done on some frequency),
  • good pre-planning for emergencies,
  • good safety precautions
  • good investigations of minor incidents/problems that are the precursors to big issues
  • good rules that avoid having an entire class cut corners on safety margins to be competitive

On the other hand, it just gets to me when people start blaming anything and everything without getting the real facts.  

 

The fact is that someone probably did make a mistake that mattered.  For something this big, it was probably more like a combination of circumstances and mistakes that came together the wrong way.  

 

In my line of work we do worry a lot that a series of events and mistakes can combine to produce a very bad result.  Each time we start a new design effort, we have a pre-job brief that includes a risk assessment.  We ask ourselves, what is the worst thing that could happen.  

 

I really have no clue what was the cause.  Until we give them time to get that facts, no one will.  

 

Until we get real facts, I assure you that I will do my absolute best to not jump into the blame game.  

 

If the facts find that the structure failed (as many here seem to think), there was one or more real causes for the failure.

 

If facts turn out to show that people cut corners or did not put the correct amount of effort into something, then there will be a basis for some "blame".

 

If facts turn out that something broke even though it was designed and manufactured to applicable standards, then we need to look at the standards.  

 

Steve Clark broke a main beam on a C Class.  His investigation concluded that something along the lines of "hidden damage" had occurred in a previous incident.  Do we really know how to ensure that large high stress carbon fiber structures are still up to the job as time goes on.  Maybe, or maybe not.  We definitely need to.  The aircraft industry may be ahead of the boating industry in this area.  

 

People do make mistakes.  If they are careless, there is reason for some blame.  If they made an honest mistake due to an oversight or a lack of knowledge, it is a different story.

 

Again, lets get the facts before making conclusions or condemning anyone or any program. 



#6490 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:11 PM

Awful :
"The British two-time Olympic gold medallist was trapped underwater, wedged underneath a few tonnes of carbon fibre, frantically trying to free himself.

His crew members could see him, fighting for his life and dived beneath the water to try to set him free, under very dangerous circumstances.

They handed the man they called Bart emergency oxygen bottles which hold about 10 breaths each in a bid to keep him alive in the hope rescue crews would arrive in time.
"
 
 
How couldn't the rescue divers come faster ?

I'm sure that question will be foremost to IM's investigation.

The account suggests they were 'handing to' him oxygen bottles, which suggests he was able to accept them. But the 'fighting for his life' might suggest panic and an inability to utilize it.

Either way, some brave souls tried very hard. They will have nightmares forever.

#6491 curiousinsider

curiousinsider

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Location:The Med

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:13 PM

I dont know the details of the AC72 certification process but having structures tested/measured by an external party might be a good idea (This could even be ACRM).

I think the measurers already do some of this but I'm not sure they can check laminate thicknesses and other datapoints which could be relevant (Like they do in the VOR).

 

What really bothers me is that people are mixing up two issues here.

Oracle's PP was a sailing accident, but AR accident seems to be much more of a construction/engineering issue and the two should not be confused.

 

Unfortunately the AC72 rules (and for what matters any rule) fight systematic abuses of reductions in weight by say, reducing the thickness of skins or density of the core "beyond reason" by feeling confident with reduced safety factors or stating a minimum weight or VCG of a rig but it is hard (I can't even see how) to go beyond that. And unfortunately most (if not all) failures happen for other reasons.

 

Even going to certification rules outside of racing ones like ABS does not guarantee safety. You may have more strict requirements regarding which load cases to use or even more detailed construction requirements but all you need is a minor design flaw, or failure in the construction process (just a little problem in a secondary bonding of a well design and, otherwise built structure) and under some dynamic situations (beyond the usual static load tests which regularly are performed) something can fail.

 

TNZ lost a mast in the 4th race of the 2003 Cup because a rig fitting failed. Probably a properly designed and built one but maybe a dent, a sequence of loads (they certainly got a very unlucky sequence of waves) were enough to break it under very specific conditions. Luckily no one was underneath so few remember it.

 

Actually since I’ve known about the AC things fail regularly in pretty much every competitive boat, some minor and some not so minor but people rarely hear about the ones which don’t turn to be catastrophic. Trust me shore teams are one of the most unfairly underrated people in the AC.     

 

So… yes. After something like what happened last Thursday hopefully everyone will learn and push to make competitive sailing safer but there is no way to make it absolutely safe and we may as well not even know the ultimate reason for the failure after reviewing all the available evidence. But still learn in the process.

 

Two random examples of complexity (and by no means the most relevant ones):

 

- After this not even all AC72 sailors will agree whether wearing a life jacket is safer or not.

- Not even amateur leisure sailing is exempt of risk.     



#6492 pjh

pjh

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:16 PM

They could dive down to him to give him extra bottles of air, but they couldn't drag him free of the wreckage? This sounds wrong, but we'll have wait for the results of the investigation to find out.

#6493 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,722 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:17 PM

Awful :
"The British two-time Olympic gold medallist was trapped underwater, wedged underneath a few tonnes of carbon fibre, frantically trying to free himself.

His crew members could see him, fighting for his life and dived beneath the water to try to set him free.

They handed the man they called Bart emergency oxygen bottles which hold about 10 breaths each in a bid to keep him alive in the hope rescue crews would arrive in time.
"
 
 
How couldn't the rescue divers come faster ?

I'm sure that question will be foremost to IM's investigation.

The account suggests they were 'handing to' him oxygen bottles, which suggests he was able to accept them. But the 'fighting for his life' might suggest panic and an inability to utilize it.

Either way, some brave souls tried very hard. They will have nightmares forever.

If they could could bring him back, it suggests he was stuck.

Yes, those who tried will have nightmares forever, it will even be worse for those who could not try.



#6494 Monster Mash

Monster Mash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,725 posts
  • Location:SF Bay Area

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:20 PM

Big Red has returned to  Camp Artemis. 
They just pushed her in the hanger minutes ago.

Thanks. Was the wing returned before now?

I don't think so.  There were other trucks with wing pieces.



#6495 idontwan2know

idontwan2know

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,794 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:22 PM

 

TNZ lost a mast in the 4th race of the 2003 Cup because a rig fitting failed. Probably a properly designed and built one but maybe a dent, a sequence of loads (they certainly got a very unlucky sequence of waves) were enough to break it under very specific conditions. Luckily no one was underneath so few remember it.

 

The tip cup was the proximate cause of the rig failing, but if you zoom out, it was very apparent that the TNZ boats in that cup were incredibly tender and prone to breaking stuff. They were halfway to sinking in moderate seas and had guys bailing with buckets. The spin pole broke under normal loads in another race. Didn't the B boat suffer a crack that had them worried they were going to drop the keel before race 1?

 

Those boats were designed to a narrow window and unsafe in heavy conditions, as indicated by their refusal to test in conditions that were within the potential race conditions.

 

Remember the onboard audio with the crewmember screaming "THIS FACKING BOAT!!" when the rig broke? That summed up nicely how the crew felt about those boats.



#6496 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,643 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:28 PM

Matt Shehan reports that the SF police are investigating. 

 

http://www.yachtingw...y-what-happened



#6497 eric e

eric e

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,451 posts
  • Location:the far east

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:29 PM

They could dive down to him to give him extra bottles of air, but they couldn't drag him free of the wreckage? This sounds wrong, but we'll have wait for the results of the investigation to find out.

 

that what it sounds like to me

 

this "folding like a taco" , "being at the wrong place at the wrong time", " we want to understand how he got from where he was to where he was found"

 

seems to suggest the mainbeam folded and that he slid? down the tramp into the folded tramp material AND between large sections of broken carbon

 

they would have been able to see him through the tramp material and probably cut through that, but the weight of the folded beams pinning him from both sides below the water they couldn't do anything about???

 

this has everything to do with the platform folding up as the rig main beam broke and the rig bringing the rear of 1 hull up and over the tramp

 

a simple pp on a rigid platform wouldn't have this closing/trapping movement that appears to have caught him

 

even a rescue diver at his side within 2 minutes of immersion would have needed a spare regulator from their bottle to feed him air for the time it would take for other divers to winch/jack the beams apart

 

presumably they will double up on rescue divers and air equipment from now as well as have "free" 40? cubic foot bottles and regulators ready to hand down to trapped sailors



#6498 jaysper

jaysper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:30 PM

The emotional toll has to be crushing.

Practically, even if they do have W3 ready to go for Boat 2, then will they have any confidence or assurances that it is any safer of a boat?

AR has a big decision to make. Hopefully facts about how things broke will be included in the equation.

 

The bigger questions are will they care and if they do, can they maintain sufficient focus



#6499 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,643 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 11 May 2013 - 08:34 PM

These details are horrifying, if true.  Excerpt from Newcastle Herald story based on an interview with Nathan Outteridge's father: 

.

.

.

http://www.theherald...capsize/?cs=303

 

I feel sick reading that. Can't bear to quote it. Truly, truly appaling. 



#6500 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,791 posts

Posted 11 May 2013 - 09:02 PM






 

TNZ lost a mast in the 4th race of the 2003 Cup because a rig fitting failed. Probably a properly designed and built one but maybe a dent, a sequence of loads (they certainly got a very unlucky sequence of waves) were enough to break it under very specific conditions. Luckily no one was underneath so few remember it.
 
The tip cup was the proximate cause of the rig failing, but if you zoom out, it was very apparent that the TNZ boats in that cup were incredibly tender and prone to breaking stuff. They were halfway to sinking in moderate seas and had guys bailing with buckets. The spin pole broke under normal loads in another race. Didn't the B boat suffer a crack that had them worried they were going to drop the keel before race 1?
 
Those boats were designed to a narrow window and unsafe in heavy conditions, as indicated by their refusal to test in conditions that were within the potential race conditions.
 
Remember the onboard audio with the crewmember screaming "THIS FACKING BOAT!!" when the rig broke? That summed up nicely how the crew felt about those boats.
Damn, a post worth reading outta you. +1

Almost posted the same about your post that started with 'I am not an engineer but:' wherever that was. Seems to me too that, be it with CF or not, some kind of minimum structural strength rules might be well-applied to the main beam and to its connections to the hulls; too-broad max weight limits hurt that safety ensurity if the designers are encouraged or tempted to spend it elsewhere; the min height COG of the wing amendment was a step in the right direction, on a similar subject.

Were I in charge of anything then for AC35 I might include as a 'one-design standard' an infrastructure built out of unobtanium, okay just unbreakable, superstructure that absolutely could not crack up under the stress of a just normal effing bearaway even if it did nosedive. OR held up after their PP until the ocean eventually broke it apart after the wing broke and it finally turned turtle, everyone long since safe. This PP should not have resulted in a fold-up but did.

Finally, yes it is even possible that something caused the rig to fail and that that precipitated the rest of it; much like what happened many times aboard many AC monohulls over the years although thankfully with mostly just overboard-to-lee consequences that people escaped injury from. Your example being a decent enough description of.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users