Jump to content


Beneteau 40.7 Cheeki Rafiki missing Mid-Atlantic


  • Please log in to reply
1604 replies to this topic

#401 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,197 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:18 PM


I don't get all the bene bashing especially seeing we have no facts as to why the keel came off. . Remember everything after 3.61m LOA is a want, not a need to circumnavigate let alone cross the Atlantic. This incident is the exception rather than the norm. Plenty of Bene's have circumnavigated. I know one that's done three and its prob not the record holder.

 j
I don't think that this is "Bene bashing", many modern production boats use the same design patterns.
 
It is more about thinking of pratical ways to make modern boats safer.
 
These are questions which one should think about and so far viable options have been offered so it is all positive. If the family reads, I don't think that seeing that the accident lead to headscratching and constructive discussion is an issue. I think that some us reading this are just thinking "this could have happened to me" and risk awareness can only be positive. I don't sail so much nowadays but if the bug bites me again, and I decide to go far away, I will certainly think more carefully about liferaft stowage, keel attachment and watertight bulkheads.
 
And it is not only about this only event, the French boat which sank nearby after being rolled over by a wave would have benefitted from two of these measures.
I see your point and do wish all yachts had better construction and safety measures ie stronger keels & attachment points and watertight compartments but its just not the way factory built yachts will go. Putting in watertight compartments takes up interior space and when two boats are sold side by side the boat with the better interior will sell because that's what the public think they want most. The factory selling the unwanted feature looses market share and the product is changed or abandoned - that's just the way it is.
People want collision bulkheads, water tight compartments, stronger keel attachment, backup steerage, rudders isolated to stop flooding etc but 9 times out of 10 they will buy something that fits the budget and will most probably do the job anyway.

Actually there are builders doing this today. Pogo cant keep up with there orders. So to say it cant be done would be incorrect. More like the issue is that the really big production builders have been doing the same thing for so long its like trying to make the USS Nimitz do a u turn with in its own wake.

Also I think some large volume builders are putting steering gear behind bulkheads in their recent designs. Kinda recall Elan and I think one other builder doing this in recent designs.

#402 kiwiInLondon

kiwiInLondon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:15 PM

Hull found www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27551917

#403 bloodshot

bloodshot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Interests:the pointy end of the boat

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:19 PM

Hull found www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27551917

 

interesting

 

The hull of the missing UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki has been found in North Atlantic ocean, the US Coast Guard has told the BBC.

 

A spokesman said a surface swimmer had identified the name on the back of the boat, but was unable to go inside.

They expect to find the rest of the vessel soon, he added.



#404 Sailer X

Sailer X

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts
  • Location:uk

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:42 PM

Hull found www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27551917

 

interesting

 

>The hull of the missing UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki has been found in North Atlantic ocean, the US Coast Guard has told the BBC.

 

A spokesman said a surface swimmer had identified the name on the back of the boat, but was unable to go inside.

They expect to find the rest of the vessel soon, he added.

 

As a Brit, can I just say well done the USN. We understood that no one would have survived in the water for the length of the original search, the unlonwns were the hull and the raft - long shots, of course



#405 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:58 PM

 



Survival suits.
I don't recall what kind and how many survival suits they had.
If conditions were such that a successful predeployment of a life raft wasn't a practical option, and the keel event was unpredictable and sudden preventing life raft deployment, would survival suits and PLB's been a useful alternative? What survival time?
thanks

 
Immersion suits would have given the crew a maximum of 6 hours in the water.
Decent test/report here:http://www.hse.gov.u...95/oto95038.pdf, also http://www.skybrary....books/2654.pdf. . . Although note it is in much colder water than the Rafiki case.

Edit here is a study in warmer water (even warmer than the Rafiki case): http://info.ogp.org....tersurvival.doc

Thanks Estar/NG. Locally we periodically hear of fisherman in survival/worksuits ending up in the water/rescued making it to shore which would be a tragedy for yachtsmen in similar circumstances. Here's one example http://abc30.com/archive/8220939/

I recall another where the fisherman made it to shore and went to a restaurant because he was hungry.

Another example http://news.google.c...pg=3290,2530751

 

Some early multihullers here would talk of wearing the black neoprene (no fabric) wetsuit under their foulies for insulation and abrasion benefit. 



#406 familysailor

familysailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,772 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay

Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:01 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27551917

 

This link works for me. for some reason the original posted above did not.

What do they mean by, "They expect to find the rest of the vessel soon,..."?

 

Other than debri, what other part of the vessel is expected to be found? The rig would sink unless it's still attached in some manner.

 

 

 



#407 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:21 PM

 

Hull found www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27551917

 

interesting

 

>The hull of the missing UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki has been found in North Atlantic ocean, the US Coast Guard has told the BBC.

 

A spokesman said a surface swimmer had identified the name on the back of the boat, but was unable to go inside.

They expect to find the rest of the vessel soon, he

added.

As a Brit, can I just say well done the USN. We understood that no one would have survived in the water for the length of the original search, the unlonwns were the hull and the raft - long shots, of course

 

updated 

 

'Cabin flooded'

The US Coast Guard said a warship helicopter crew located the hull 1,000 miles from Massachusetts.

The warship was diverted and a boat crew sent to examine the boat.

They found the cabin of the yacht was flooded and the windows shattered. The yacht's keel was also broken, causing a breach in the hull, a spokesman added.

A friend of the family of James Male, one of the crew, told the BBC they were aware of the latest development and remained optimistic that he may still be alive.

The US search for the yacht is still set to end by Friday night.

A statement from the US Coast Guard said: "The hull sighting has not impacted search planning as teams continue to look for a bright-coloured life raft as their search object. "



#408 Innocent Bystander

Innocent Bystander

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,391 posts
  • Location:Lower Southern MD

Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:29 PM

Other than relocating the flooded, overturned hull, this really doesn't add anything unless someone goes inside.

While I'm sure the Captain wants to help answer some of the obvious questions, rescue swimmers are not salvage divers. I don't expect anyone to try to access the hull unless there is a dive team aboard and that is unlikely.

#409 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 23 May 2014 - 10:02 PM

http://www.uscgnews....c/4007/2168098/ 

 

 

SEARCH CREWS LOCATE OVERTURNED HULL OF DISTRESSED SAILING VESSEL 1,000 MILES OFFSHORE MASSACHUSETTS

BOSTON - A U.S. Navy warship helicopter crew located the overturned hull of the Cheeki Rafiki 1,000 miles offshore Massachusetts and within the U.S. Coast Guard's search area, Friday.

There was no evidence to suggest the vessel was different from the capsized boat already located during searches on Saturday, May 17, also within a U.S. Coast Guard search area.

The warship diverted to the location and deployed a boat crew and surface swimmer to assess the boat.

The surface swimmer confirmed the name on the ship was Cheeki Rafiki and went in the water to investigate further. The swimmer determined the boat's cabin was flooded and windows were shattered, contributing to the complete flooding inside. 

The swimmer also knocked on the hull and reached an arm's length below the waterline with no results. Surface swimmers are not trained divers and do not perform sub-surface operations.

Navy crews observed that the sailing vessel's keel was broken off, causing a breech in the hull. 

The hull sighting has not impacted search planning as teams continue to look for a bright-colored life raft as their search object. 

The U.S. Coast Guard made an announcement, Thursday, that search operations would be suspended at midnight Friday unless new information or sightings suggested the crew would still be alive. None of the current developments indicate that to be the case.

As a matter of policy, the U.S. Coast Guard does not perform salvage operations.



#410 Dawg Gonit

Dawg Gonit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,995 posts
  • Location:Channel Islands (oxnard), Calif

Posted 23 May 2014 - 10:35 PM

The keel ,the dreaded keel .To simply bolt a keel through GRP and hope it stays on even if hit at speed is not going to happen . XYachts and Arcona yachts have addressed this problem by  installing a metal box section along the length of the yachts that is bolted and secured across the yachts, and the keel bolts go through steel and are attached to distribute the keel loads incured.

The GRP keel frames on Beneteau's are simply glued down with  a bog mix nothing else, so if you hit something in a Beneteau  it cracks and the GRP frames come away from the hull laminates.

 

As to sailing Oceans in Beneteau's or any cruising racing yacht ,I personally would not jump on a yacht without.

1.  Liferafts installed on the stern.

2   All crew have survival suits .

3.  Epirb readily available on yacht at all times outside.

4.  Deployment of inflatable bags or watertight bulkheads installed.

5.  Escape hatch installed if yachts do not have them.

6.  Keel survey and laminates to be inspected before Ocean passage's can take place.

 

There will be disagreement , ask the poor souls who have lost there lives over the years.

If one person looses there life ,in my eyes it's one to many.

The safety rules need changing for cruising / racing ocean going yachts that want to take part in ocean races and ocean deliveries.

 

It's not that difficult to implement.

 

 

My friend Roman was a retired rocket scientist. No, really, a rocket scientist. He had worked for Boeing and Rocket Research in Seattle. He was a bit odd, lived on a Dufour, was Polish and had lots of stories to tell. Our boats were on the same dock at Shilshole. I asked him to work in my office on a particular engineering problem I had. Roman showed up for work, sat there for two days and quit. " Can't do it. Too many variables" he said.

Science!


It sounds like it time to start over building in the keel attachment area. It seems that bulkhead and stringers need to be bigger and stronger.

 

Otherwise Insurance Companies will start setting the Standard and we will all be sailing uninsurable boats.

 

 

My insurance precludes me from venturing more than 250 miles off shore.

I suppose my premium would sky rocket if I were to enter the  Pacific Cup or Trans Pac.



#411 SCANAS

SCANAS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 805 posts
  • Location:Brisbane
  • Interests:Water and Mud

Posted 24 May 2014 - 12:19 AM

Hopefully one of the private vessels will dive on the boat and look for a raft. Will the USCG give up the position? Notice to mariners maybe.

#412 Firebar

Firebar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Location:The Solent

Posted 24 May 2014 - 12:33 AM

My friend Roman was a retired rocket scientist. No, really, a rocket scientist........" Can't do it. Too many variables" he said.
Science!


I've just been doing some aircraft dynamics, the simplest flexible aircraft model, which assumes symmetrical bending in one direction for a model consisting of 3 masses and 2 springs has a 2x2 matrix system to solve to find mode shapes and to go on to get further data.

It boggles the mind how much more complicated that a system with a more complete model and more degrees of freedom, up to pitch/roll/yaw/up/left/forward and the inverses, can get and how quickly.

I know that I'd hate to be doing the calculations! Even if the system was to be analysed using FEA the model has still got to be validated and verified against analytical and experimental data too! Mind you there is probably the programming knowledge to create code to do it, especially from say Airbus or Boeing proprietary gust loading code.

#413 Adksail

Adksail

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Location:Lake Champlain

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:02 AM

Until the liferaft is located, there is still a chance these guys are in it. If the boat was taking on water they damned well knew to get the raft ready to go. This boat did not break up and sink like a stone. There was time. These were capable, fit people who may have had a chance to get  into a liferaft. Giving up searching makes no sense.



#414 Sailabout

Sailabout

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts
  • Location:Here there and everywhere
  • Interests:Engines

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:03 AM

the aircraft manufacturers have tested airframes to destruction

On yachts, that job is done by the sailors out to sea but seems they forgot to takes notes..



#415 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,197 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:05 AM

The keel ,the dreaded keel .To simply bolt a keel through GRP and hope it stays on even if hit at speed is not going to happen . XYachts and Arcona yachts have addressed this problem by  installing a metal box section along the length of the yachts that is bolted and secured across the yachts, and the keel bolts go through steel and are attached to distribute the keel loads incured.
The GRP keel frames on Beneteau's are simply glued down with  a bog mix nothing else, so if you hit something in a Beneteau  it cracks and the GRP frames come away from the hull laminates.
 
As to sailing Oceans in Beneteau's or any cruising racing yacht ,I personally would not jump on a yacht without.
1.  Liferafts installed on the stern.
2   All crew have survival suits .
3.  Epirb readily available on yacht at all times outside.
4.  Deployment of inflatable bags or watertight bulkheads installed.
5.  Escape hatch installed if yachts do not have them.
6.  Keel survey and laminates to be inspected before Ocean passage's can take place.
 
There will be disagreement , ask the poor souls who have lost there lives over the years.
If one person looses there life ,in my eyes it's one to many.
The safety rules need changing for cruising / racing ocean going yachts that want to take part in ocean races and ocean deliveries.
 
It's not that difficult to implement.


Most ocean passages are done sans insurance anyway. If were the other way around we would already be sailing beefy production boats.
 
 

My friend Roman was a retired rocket scientist. No, really, a rocket scientist. He had worked for Boeing and Rocket Research in Seattle. He was a bit odd, lived on a Dufour, was Polish and had lots of stories to tell. Our boats were on the same dock at Shilshole. I asked him to work in my office on a particular engineering problem I had. Roman showed up for work, sat there for two days and quit. " Can't do it. Too many variables" he said.
Science!


It sounds like it time to start over building in the keel attachment area. It seems that bulkhead and stringers need to be bigger and stronger.
 
Otherwise Insurance Companies will start setting the Standard and we will all be sailing uninsurable boats.
 
 
My insurance precludes me from venturing more than 250 miles off shore.
I suppose my premium would sky rocket if I were to enter the  Pacific Cup or Trans Pac.


#416 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:17 AM

USCG confirm liferaft still on board Cheeki Rafiki.. surface swimmer with camera confirms liferaft still in storage space in cockpit..

#417 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:23 AM

http://www.uscgnews....c/4007/2168318/

 

450x300_q75.jpg



#418 Dawg Gonit

Dawg Gonit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,995 posts
  • Location:Channel Islands (oxnard), Calif

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:29 AM

USCG confirm liferaft still on board Cheeki Rafiki.. surface swimmer with camera confirms liferaft still in storage space in cockpit..

That is bad news.
Without survival suits, longevity is very short in that area.

 

If they are not found, I'm sure some lawyer will find fault in the build of the boat.

 

As with Cars and Air Frames, Crash tests (capsize survivability tests) are coming for boats.
Costs will skyrocket and Marinas will sit empty. Forget about insurance (if you can afford it).

 

As a disabled person in the USA, I cannot buy an adaptive equipped vehicle unless the adaptive equipment meets Government requirements and is installed by government certified technicians.
What is going to happen with the Marine Industry when this happens to it??



#419 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,396 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:31 AM

Im sure there are more disappearances that simply didn't make the news. My father bought a fishing boat from the estate of a man who was doing a solo delivery on a trimaran from Key West to Miami early 80s. Calm night with good visibility It is believed he was hit by a freighter, but no wreckage turned up. Revenoc disappeared in same area about 30 years earlier. She was hit by a weather bomb about a day after leaving Key West. The dinghy washed ashore at West Palm Beach a few weeks later. The boat may have capsized, may have suffered structural damage, or may have been hit by a ship in extreme conditions with poor visibility. Smackwater Jack disappeared on delivery back to NZ after S2H. Boat was a lightly constructed cb one-ton caught out in a gale. Either capsized, or suffered structural failure. A passing yacht spotted a partially inflated raft with 3 bodies a few days later, but was unable to recover them. So at least 3 of 4 aboard were able to abandon ship. Raft was never relocated.

 

 


Above partial list is just the past 30 years. Scarce info prior.

how many just disappeared? no epirbs or sat phones. just over due and presumed lost.
 
How many offshore racing monohull yachts prior to 30 years ago just disappeared?
 
Not many. Ponsonby Express, Charleston, Smackwater Jack, Charleston, Sequoiah (I think), two boats in the 1951 Wellington to Christchurch race in NZ, Revenoc (one of the best US boats of the late '50s), two boats in the inaugural Mini Transat in 1977, and Airel (Mauric one ton) in Marseille Week 1977. I must have missed some, but not too many vanished.
 
When Airel was lost and it turned out that she had raced without a raft, the race officials were sentenced to jail time. When Revenoc (a Finnisterre-style heavy centreboarder) was lost, the result was that the trend to such boats "abruptly came to an end" (to quote the Stephens brothers biography). Other losses lead to things like the change to IOR MkIIIA, the introduction of ABS, etc. 
 
The earlier losses often lead to major changes in yacht rules and designs, so why do we keep calmly accepting the deaths that occur when high aspect keels are lost?

 

I'd say that very few, if any, offshore racing yachts have vanished without making news. All such incidents seem to be treated as big news by the sailing media.

 

As an example of the way losses were seen in earlier eras, when my coffee was brewing I grabbed my 1979 Seahorse binder and checked up on the reaction to the deaths of Tom Curtis and Tom Curnow in separate incidents in the 1979 SORC. There was a break-out box about the tragedies on the very first editorial page and the main feature about the SORC lead with the news of the two deaths. Two editions later the editor found space in the mag's major issue (the Admiral's Cup programme) to reprint the detailed report that had been carried by Yachting. And those tragedies weren't mysterious.

 

Another example - the glossy French annual "The World of Yachting" devoted about half as much editorial space to the loss of Airel as it did to the Whitbread race. And when Charleston was lost, Bob Ross (editor of Australian Sailing) did a very thorough article about her construction and loss. 

 

The reason I bring these up is that they show that when offshore racing boats were lost, there was normally a blaze of publicity and therefore there's very little chance that a significant number of other offshore racers vanished before about '79 without us being able to recall them. That highlights the difference between the very low keel loss rate before about '79, and the enormously higher once since then.

 

The safety record of offshore racing used to be astoundingly high, now it is much worse. Other sports, even F1, have dramatically increased safety but sailing is reducing it. A few simple tweaks to the rules (like giving a rating advantage to longer keel chords and greater widths) could probably save a few lives so why is it not being done?

 

PS thanks for the clarification re Morning Cloud. BTW as far as I can recall, the articles (by John Mallitte of NZ Sea Spray etc, IIRC) about Smackwater Jack didn't mention anything about a raft being seen.

 



#420 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:37 AM


USCG confirm liferaft still on board Cheeki Rafiki.. surface swimmer with camera confirms liferaft still in storage space in cockpit..


That pretty well proves the keel fell off suddenly, and the crew either drowned immediately, or died of hypothermia within a couple hours.

#421 BuckFoston

BuckFoston

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:37 AM

That's really odd Estar. How could the life raft not have been deployed or readied in a slow sink like this?

Very sad but enough is enough.

Amazing the jack offs that criticized the Maersk container ship and it's captain in the beginning. A company that is dedicated to training it's sailors to respond to the law of the sea. 1,000 foot container ships doing 25 knots aren't very maneuverable and don't carry ribs and diving equipment and people trained to use them. But merchant seaman rescue yachties every week often at great cost which they never complain about. And those complaining about the uscg. This is FAR from US waters and dosnt involve US citizens. Think about that next time you bitch about our involvement in other areas. Fack off!

#422 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:44 AM

Re the photo - looks like middle couple keel bolts pulled right thru the laminate and end ones sheared off?

Suggests structure/frame failure?

Suggests grounding/improper repair?

#423 BuckFoston

BuckFoston

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:44 AM




I don't get all the bene bashing especially seeing we have no facts as to why the keel came off. . Remember everything after 3.61m LOA is a want, not a need to circumnavigate let alone cross the Atlantic. This incident is the exception rather than the norm. Plenty of Bene's have circumnavigated. I know one that's done three and its prob not the record holder.

 j
I don't think that this is "Bene bashing", many modern production boats use the same design patterns.
 
It is more about thinking of pratical ways to make modern boats safer.
 
These are questions which one should think about and so far viable options have been offered so it is all positive. If the family reads, I don't think that seeing that the accident lead to headscratching and constructive discussion is an issue. I think that some us reading this are just thinking "this could have happened to me" and risk awareness can only be positive. I don't sail so much nowadays but if the bug bites me again, and I decide to go far away, I will certainly think more carefully about liferaft stowage, keel attachment and watertight bulkheads.
 
And it is not only about this only event, the French boat which sank nearby after being rolled over by a wave would have benefitted from two of these measures.
I see your point and do wish all yachts had better construction and safety measures ie stronger keels & attachment points and watertight compartments but its just not the way factory built yachts will go. Putting in watertight compartments takes up interior space and when two boats are sold side by side the boat with the better interior will sell because that's what the public think they want most. The factory selling the unwanted feature looses market share and the product is changed or abandoned - that's just the way it is.
People want collision bulkheads, water tight compartments, stronger keel attachment, backup steerage, rudders isolated to stop flooding etc but 9 times out of 10 they will buy something that fits the budget and will most probably do the job anyway.
Actually there are builders doing this today. Pogo cant keep up with there orders. So to say it cant be done would be incorrect. More like the issue is that the really big production builders have been doing the same thing for so long its like trying to make the USS Nimitz do a u turn with in its own wake.
Also I think some large volume builders are putting steering gear behind bulkheads in their recent designs. Kinda recall Elan and I think one other builder doing this in recent designs.
A Beneteau 40.7 is not designed or built with trans ocean passages in mind. If they were in a 1970s S+S they might still be here. Horses for courses. When you assume a risk unfortunately sometimes the odds will get you. 98 pct of the time you win.

#424 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:45 AM

Smackwater Jack: Debris found on beach near where liferaft w/bodies was spotted several days after disappearence.
http://m.nzherald.co...jectid=10485721


Im sure there are more disappearances that simply didn't make the news. My father bought a fishing boat from the estate of a man who was doing a solo delivery on a trimaran from Key West to Miami early 80s. Calm night with good visibility It is believed he was hit by a freighter, but no wreckage turned up. Revenoc disappeared in same area about 30 years earlier. She was hit by a weather bomb about a day after leaving Key West. The dinghy washed ashore at West Palm Beach a few weeks later. The boat may have capsized, may have suffered structural damage, or may have been hit by a ship in extreme conditions with poor visibility. Smackwater Jack disappeared on delivery back to NZ after S2H. Boat was a lightly constructed cb one-ton caught out in a gale. Either capsized, or suffered structural failure. A passing yacht spotted a partially inflated raft with 3 bodies a few days later, but was unable to recover them. So at least 3 of 4 aboard were able to abandon ship. Raft was never relocated.


 


 



Above partial list is just the past 30 years. Scarce info prior.

how many just disappeared? no epirbs or sat phones. just over due and presumed lost.
 
How many offshore racing monohull yachts prior to 30 years ago just disappeared?
 
Not many. Ponsonby Express, Charleston, Smackwater Jack, Charleston, Sequoiah (I think), two boats in the 1951 Wellington to Christchurch race in NZ, Revenoc (one of the best US boats of the late '50s), two boats in the inaugural Mini Transat in 1977, and Airel (Mauric one ton) in Marseille Week 1977. I must have missed some, but not too many vanished.
 
When Airel was lost and it turned out that she had raced without a raft, the race officials were sentenced to jail time. When Revenoc (a Finnisterre-style heavy centreboarder) was lost, the result was that the trend to such boats "abruptly came to an end" (to quote the Stephens brothers biography). Other losses lead to things like the change to IOR MkIIIA, the introduction of ABS, etc. 
 
The earlier losses often lead to major changes in yacht rules and designs, so why do we keep calmly accepting the deaths that occur when high aspect keels are lost?
 
I'd say that very few, if any, offshore racing yachts have vanished without making news. All such incidents seem to be treated as big news by the sailing media.
 
As an example of the way losses were seen in earlier eras, when my coffee was brewing I grabbed my 1979 Seahorse binder and checked up on the reaction to the deaths of Tom Curtis and Tom Curnow in separate incidents in the 1979 SORC. There was a break-out box about the tragedies on the very first editorial page and the main feature about the SORC lead with the news of the two deaths. Two editions later the editor found space in the mag's major issue (the Admiral's Cup programme) to reprint the detailed report that had been carried by Yachting. And those tragedies weren't mysterious.
 
Another example - the glossy French annual "The World of Yachting" devoted about half as much editorial space to the loss of Airel as it did to the Whitbread race. And when Charleston was lost, Bob Ross (editor of Australian Sailing) did a very thorough article about her construction and loss. 
 
The reason I bring these up is that they show that when offshore racing boats were lost, there was normally a blaze of publicity and therefore there's very little chance that a significant number of other offshore racers vanished before about '79 without us being able to recall them. That highlights the difference between the very low keel loss rate before about '79, and the enormously higher once since then.
 
The safety record of offshore racing used to be astoundingly high, now it is much worse. Other sports, even F1, have dramatically increased safety but sailing is reducing it. A few simple tweaks to the rules (like giving a rating advantage to longer keel chords and greater widths) could probably save a few lives so why is it not being done?
 
PS thanks for the clarification re Morning Cloud. BTW as far as I can recall, the articles (by John Mallitte of NZ Sea Spray etc, IIRC) about Smackwater Jack didn't mention anything about a raft being seen.
 


#425 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:50 AM

Well at this juncture I hope the boat is recovered/salvaged since its possible (likely?) 2 sailors are entombed. How many PLBs? 2-4?

 

Condolences to friends and family



#426 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:52 AM

Re the photo - looks like middle couple keel bolts pulled right thru the laminate and end ones sheared off?

Suggests structure/frame failure?

Suggests grounding/improper repair?


The leaking strongly indicates the hull was cracking or delaminating. Cause not known. Yes, if side keel bolts were destroying the hull, then the keel swinging back and forth easily could have fatigued and broken the fore and aft keelbolts.

#427 ProaSailor

ProaSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts
  • Location:Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:53 AM

Re the photo - looks like middle couple keel bolts pulled right thru the laminate and end ones sheared off?

Suggests structure/frame failure?

Suggests grounding/improper repair?

 

Page says Resolution: 4928x3280 and "Register/Login to Download" - anyone here qualify for Member Registration who can get the hi-res photos?



#428 familysailor

familysailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,772 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:03 AM

450x300_q75.jpg

450x300_q75.jpg

450x300_q75.jpg

 

Best i can do. Copy paste from the pics shown.



#429 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:07 AM

This is a crop of the high res photo:

Attached File  image.jpg   56.4K   965 downloads

#430 SMBReno

SMBReno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Location:Reno, NV
  • Interests:Shorthanded sailing.

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:12 AM

The keel ,the dreaded keel .To simply bolt a keel through GRP and hope it stays on even if hit at speed is not going to happen . XYachts and Arcona yachts have addressed this problem by  installing a metal box section along the length of the yachts that is bolted and secured across the yachts, and the keel bolts go through steel and are attached to distribute the keel loads incured.

The GRP keel frames on Beneteau's are simply glued down with  a bog mix nothing else, so if you hit something in a Beneteau  it cracks and the GRP frames come away from the hull laminates.

 

As to sailing Oceans in Beneteau's or any cruising racing yacht ,I personally would not jump on a yacht without.

1.  Liferafts installed on the stern.

2   All crew have survival suits .

3.  Epirb readily available on yacht at all times outside.

4.  Deployment of inflatable bags or watertight bulkheads installed.

5.  Escape hatch installed if yachts do not have them.

6.  Keel survey and laminates to be inspected before Ocean passage's can take place.

 

There will be disagreement , ask the poor souls who have lost there lives over the years.

If one person looses there life ,in my eyes it's one to many.

The safety rules need changing for cruising / racing ocean going yachts that want to take part in ocean races and ocean deliveries.

 

It's not that difficult to implement.

 

 

>My friend Roman was a retired rocket scientist. No, really, a rocket scientist. He had worked for Boeing and Rocket Research in Seattle. He was a bit odd, lived on a Dufour, was Polish and had lots of stories to tell. Our boats were on the same dock at Shilshole. I asked him to work in my office on a particular engineering problem I had. Roman showed up for work, sat there for two days and quit. " Can't do it. Too many variables" he said.

Science!


It sounds like it time to start over building in the keel attachment area. It seems that bulkhead and stringers need to be bigger and stronger.

 

Otherwise Insurance Companies will start setting the Standard and we will all be sailing uninsurable boats.

 

 

My insurance precludes me from venturing more than 250 miles off shore.

I suppose my premium would sky rocket if I were to enter the  Pacific Cup or Trans Pac.

 

No, it would decline to zero with a very high deductible.



#431 Ishmael

Ishmael

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,285 posts
  • Location:Fuctifino

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:13 AM

Looks like the keel and some hull structure took out a thru-hull on the way out? Very straight tear line down the hull. There are some grotty laminate areas in that shot, looks like old damage possibly?



#432 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:16 AM

Attached File  keel.PNG   525.36K   373 downloads



#433 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:20 AM

^^ yes, looks like end bolts sheared and middle ones pulled thru the laminate.

Possible scenario - end bolts partially fractured in a grounding, break completely in storm, leaving all loading on middle ones, which start working the structure, causing the leak, before pulling right thru and dropping the keel off.

#434 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,883 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:21 AM

Are those rust stains around the aft keelboat and possibly the 2nd forward one?

 

That's not good as it could suggest loose and/or poorly sealed and torqued bolts.



#435 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,883 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:24 AM

Looks like the keel and some hull structure took out a thru-hull on the way out? Very straight tear line down the hull. There are some grotty laminate areas in that shot, looks like old damage possibly?

Weird spot for a thru hull though.



#436 Dawg Gonit

Dawg Gonit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,995 posts
  • Location:Channel Islands (oxnard), Calif

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:31 AM

 

Above partial list is just the past 30 years. Scarce info prior.

how many just disappeared? no epirbs or sat phones. just over due and presumed lost.

 

How many offshore racing monohull yachts prior to 30 years ago just disappeared?

 

Not many. Ponsonby Express, Charleston, Smackwater Jack, Charleston, Sequoiah (I think), two boats in the 1951 Wellington to Christchurch race in NZ, Revenoc (one of the best US boats of the late '50s), two boats in the inaugural Mini Transat in 1977, and Airel (Mauric one ton) in Marseille Week 1977. I must have missed some, but not too many vanished.

 

When Airel was lost and it turned out that she had raced without a raft, the race officials were sentenced to jail time. When Revenoc (a Finnisterre-style heavy centreboarder) was lost, the result was that the trend to such boats "abruptly came to an end" (to quote the Stephens brothers biography). Other losses lead to things like the change to IOR MkIIIA, the introduction of ABS, etc. 

 

The earlier losses often lead to major changes in yacht rules and designs, so why do we keep calmly accepting the deaths that occur when high aspect keels are lost?

but weren't many of those full keel designed.
The fin keel brought many changes.

Fiberglass brought many changes

 

It seems the Insurance industry and Lloyds have not kept up with modern changes.

Rather they were busy playing the ODDS.



#437 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,013 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:31 AM

Hard to be certain but the forward outline of where the keel was attached does not look as perfectly symmetrical as one might expect; it looks like it might be "wavy" or otherwise distorted which would make sense as I would guess that the outer fiberglass composite skin would probably bend or flex somewhat as the failure proceeded. I would also guess that if you looked inside the hull you would find the grid structure intact but with a sizable gap between that structure and the outer fiberglass/composite skin.

.

 



#438 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:33 AM


Looks like the keel and some hull structure took out a thru-hull on the way out? Very straight tear line down the hull. There are some grotty laminate areas in that shot, looks like old damage possibly?

Weird spot for a thru hull though.
Maybe for the head or sink.

#439 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,883 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:41 AM

 


Looks like the keel and some hull structure took out a thru-hull on the way out? Very straight tear line down the hull. There are some grotty laminate areas in that shot, looks like old damage possibly?

Weird spot for a thru hull though.
Maybe for the head or sink.

Doubt it… mid keel puts it under saloon berth; unless they had a water maker fitted or something.



#440 slip knot

slip knot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:56 AM

I suspect it was a transducer.
My boat has one in the same spot.

#441 Sailabout

Sailabout

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts
  • Location:Here there and everywhere
  • Interests:Engines

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:20 AM

A boat I lived on for a year, sunk ( after I left) in the Perfect Storm, 75' had 2 hydrostatic released 12man life rafts on deck fore and aft.

Boat was bashed around all night sinking, all 4 crew good swimmers and always ready and practised for an abandon.

When it sank  ( they still thought they were ok but flooded)it happened so quick all crew ended up in the water no grab bag no vhf or plb ( were they invented then?)  then luckily one raft came up and they got into it, wind down to 30-40kts by then and it was the morning.

USCG had position, all rescued to a tanker

What happens is not like the text book

Who wants to get into the raft before you have sunk?



#442 6924

6924

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 698 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:41 AM

The photos are enough to give all of us pause.

Some questions: the laminate clearly failed, is the tan revealed a bonding agent for the liner ?

#443 Sailabout

Sailabout

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts
  • Location:Here there and everywhere
  • Interests:Engines

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:45 AM

The photos are enough to give all of us pause.

Some questions: the laminate clearly failed, is the tan revealed a bonding agent for the liner ?

 

The photos are enough to give all of us pause.

Some questions: the laminate clearly failed, is the tan revealed a bonding agent for the liner ?

I cant see that it wasnt a massive hit from the front, hull flexed ( down at the front and up in the rear) and sheared the front and aft bolts as it pivoted on the center and those bolts didnt shear so it took some hull ( boat was heeled so it took out the low side) with them, maybe?



#444 ProaSailor

ProaSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts
  • Location:Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:50 AM

I suspect it was a transducer.
My boat has one in the same spot.

 
Similar to the pattern on the 40.7 Barracuda on the 2007 Mackinac return delivery:
 
http://forums.sailin...showtopic=57688
 

Ran aground in heavy seas... keel punched up and through hull floor. Once pulled off, keel area failed, keel fell off. Hole in boat caused it to sink in a few minutes.

3 people on board were recovered.

 
Baracuda_Bottom.jpg



#445 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:53 AM

The photos are enough to give all of us pause.

Some questions: the laminate clearly failed, is the tan revealed a bonding agent for the liner ?

 

>The photos are enough to give all of us pause.

Some questions: the laminate clearly failed, is the tan revealed a bonding agent for the liner ?

I cant see that it wasnt a massive hit from the front, hull flexed ( down at the front and up in the rear) and sheared the front and aft bolts as it pivoted on the center and those bolts didnt shear so it took some hull ( boat was heeled so it took out the low side) with them, maybe?

 

They would have mentioned the hit when they called in the leak?



#446 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:10 AM

http://www.uscgnews....c/4007/2167306/

 

 

BOSTON — The Coast Guard suspended its search at 10:00 p.m., Friday, May 23, for the missing crew members of the 39-foot sailing vessel Cheeki Rafiki who reported distress approximately 1,000 miles east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, on Friday, May 16.

At the request of the British Government, the Coast Guard resumed search efforts at 7:38 a.m., Tuesday, having suspending its original 4,000-square-mile search on Sunday after the sailors had not been located.

After an additional 21,000 square miles of searches, the U.S. Coast Guard suspended the second search. The time of suspension was midnight at the search area.

Based on the extreme sea conditions at the time of distress, but assuming best-case emergency equipment, the estimated survival time past the time of distress was approximately 20 hours. Searches were suspended nearly 200 hours after the time of distress.

Watchstanders from the 1st Coast Guard District command center worked around the clock to develop search patterns using weather and currents information.

Multiple crews from military branches across the world saturated the search area offshore with no sign of survivors. Commercial vessels also assisted heavily in the search.

After a Navy warship relocated the overturned sailing vessel on Friday, search planners confirmed the boat's life raft was secured in its storage space in the aft portion of the boat, indicating the crew had not been able to use it for emergency purposes. 

Aircraft and vessels involved in the search were:

  • a U.S. Coast Guard HC-130 Hercules aircraft from Air Station Elizabeth City, North Carolina
  • a U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Vigorous, homeported in Cape May, New Jersey
  • a 106th Rescue Wing U.S. Air National Guard crew from Gabranski, New York
  • a U.S. Navy warship, homeported in Norfolk, Virginia
  • a U.S. Navy MH-60 helicopter embarked aboard the U.S. Navy warship
  • a U.S. Air Force C-130 aircraft from Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Georgia
  • a Canadian military C-130 aircraft 
  • a Royal Air Force HC-130 Hercules aircraft from Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
  • the 672-foot motor vessel Premium Do Brasil
  • the 700-foot motor vessel Amapola
  • the 751-foot motor vessel AM Hamburg
  • the 551-foor motor vessel Independent Accord
  • the 600-foot motor vessel Teesta Spirit
  • the 652-foot motor vessel Georgia Highway
  • the 1,000-foot motor vessel Maersk Kure
  • the 600-foot motor vessel Bow Flora
  • the 477-foot motor vessel Chem Venus

"It is with sincere compassion for the families of these four men that our thoughts and prayers are with them all during this difficult time," said Capt. Anthony Popiel, 1st U.S. Coast Guard District Chief of Response. "The U.S. Coast Guard is always hopeful, and makes the utmost efforts to find and rescue those in peril. We have the greatest appreciation for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force for working with us alongside the militaries of Canada and the United Kingdom during this massive search effort. It is only after our deepest consideration that we suspend our active search efforts."



#447 Blitz

Blitz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:17 AM

After all this discussion on inspection and testing of the keel structure. Curious how many owners here will do a thorough inspection of their yachts.

#448 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:24 AM


The photos are enough to give all of us pause.

Some questions: the laminate clearly failed, is the tan revealed a bonding agent for the liner ?

 

>The photos are enough to give all of us pause.

Some questions: the laminate clearly failed, is the tan revealed a bonding agent for the liner ?

I cant see that it wasnt a massive hit from the front, hull flexed ( down at the front and up in the rear) and sheared the front and aft bolts as it pivoted on the center and those bolts didnt slphear so it took some hull ( boat was heeled so it took out the low side) with them, maybe?
 
They would have mentioned the hit when they called in the leak?

Not only would they have mentioned the hit, but the keel would have been the focus of the search for the leak. Furthermore, knowing collision damage and leaking around keel, they would have most likely gone ahead and issued a mayday, and begun an orderly abandon ship. None of that occurred. The crew didn't suspect the keel was failing until it suddenly fell off, and if there was a collision, they didn't notice it.

#449 Trickypig

Trickypig

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,883 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:32 AM

The rust particularly around the aft keelboat hole would suggest a prexisting problem.

 

With Beneteaus: Generally when we pulled keelboats, no matter how rusted the heads in the bilge were, the threads came out shiny and with no rust apparent. If there was any rust on the threads it was considered a dire problem.

 

Once a bilge has a lot of water it is a very difficult thing to identify a leak. I know from scary experience.



#450 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,006 posts
  • Location:Richmond, CA

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:53 AM

R.I.P. boys, I'm so sorry. We have to start doing things differently.

#451 NoStrings

NoStrings

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,006 posts
  • Location:Richmond, CA

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:13 AM

After all this discussion on inspection and testing of the keel structure. Curious how many owners here will do a thorough inspection of their yachts.


Before I did the '12 Pac Cup I hauled and surveyed and found significant cracks around my keel stub that some fuckwit had cosmetically repaired with a layer of cloth and some red hat. $8k and 30 layers of cloth and epoxy later, it was fixed. I sailed the boat to and from HI, and the keel is fine. Without that inspection, we'd probably have gone for a swim. I also carried my raft at the bottom of the companionway. I fucking worried about that for 5k miles...never again.

Things can go pear shaped faster than we can respond...plan for it.

#452 Mark Morwood

Mark Morwood

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Location:Out crusiing - Bahamas, Atlantic, Med, Caribbean
  • Interests:Catana 48
    "Por Dos"

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:56 AM

That's really odd Estar. How could the life raft not have been deployed or readied in a slow sink like this?

 

 

cms back in post #91 on page 1 of this thread probably has as good a description of the likely events as any:

 

Sadly, the likely scenario was:

Leak, hard to find the source, but pumps keeping up OK.

Keep searching for source of leak. If you have tried when there is a fair amount of water in a boat, you will know how hard it is. Looks likely the leak was in keel area.

Bang, keel detaches. (reason unknown - previous impact since last inspection ashore, or collision with semi-submerged container or whatever)

Boat capsizes.

Some crew on deck, some below.

Impossible to deploy liferaft.

One, then later another crew member manage to activate their PLBs.

No-one can get to the EPIRB to activate it.

 

No crew found alongside hull, so either swept away or drowned and not visible, or inside the hull.

Inside the hull there may be a very slim chance of survival for a more extended period.

 

12 man raft with so few bodies in it is dangerous. With 4 crew only, they should have carried a 4 or 6 man raft.

 

Not trying to out-think anyone, or criticise, just rationalise the likely events.

 

A number of experienced people on this thread have described how hard it can be to deploy and get into a liferaft successfully when there is a sea running, even with the boat upright. When a boat turtles suddenly, the chances suddenly decrease dramatically, I'm guessing to close to zero if the raft has not deployed itself as the boat flipped.



#453 Sailabout

Sailabout

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts
  • Location:Here there and everywhere
  • Interests:Engines

Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:50 AM

PS once you have been in a life raft and looked at its rating you know you want at least 2 places for each person especially pleasure boat versions.



#454 cms

cms

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Location:Le Minihic near St. Malo

Posted 24 May 2014 - 08:05 AM

My apologies to Estar for a slightly sharp comment about UK SAR. He is right in as much as the Nimrod AR2 long range patrol aircraft were sacrificed in a budget cut. I hope this will speed their proper replacement. I was referring more to the commitment and even gallantry of helicopter crews and others, but of course they have VERY limited range.

 

I would be pretty sure that previous damage is the cause of the keel failure. Doug will be going over every work record for the boat. I hope it is not another of those cases of charterers, or even inexperienced employed skippers who do not want to won up to fuck ups, not reporting incidents, or quickly covering up evidence thereof. It would certainly not be the first time I have known that to happen.

 

Although, in the end, the stupidity of a 12 person raft for the 4 crew was not put to the test, I sincerely hope this practice stops NOW.

 

And so we come back to the thorny issue of liferaft stowage.... Although many bitch about how easily damage could occur, I still feel that well designed pushpit mounting, or proper outside stowage on the transom look like the best available options, and, if made compulsory in race rules, would stop any argument about windage affecting performance.



#455 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,741 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 24 May 2014 - 09:01 AM

The safety record of offshore racing used to be astoundingly high, now it is much worse.

 

Umm, I'm not sure about that. There were a number of fatalities on the early round the world races as I recall. Not arguing that keels fell off far less frequently, but I don't know that it was safer overall.



#456 Sailer X

Sailer X

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts
  • Location:uk

Posted 24 May 2014 - 11:18 AM

The skipper I sail with regularly has suggested that if there was a concern about keel/leak, he might inflate the dinghy and tow on a short line. Easy to be wise after the event, but...



#457 Torsten

Torsten

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia branch

Posted 24 May 2014 - 11:39 AM

Sad end to it all and thoughts go to the friends and families of those lost.



#458 slip knot

slip knot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 24 May 2014 - 11:39 AM

The skipper I sail with regularly has suggested that if there was a concern about keel/leak, he might inflate the dinghy and tow on a short line. Easy to be wise after the event, but...


I would expect that either the line would snap, or if stronger line was used, the raft would be damaged.
This isn't a mill pond, it's the north Atlantic.

#459 GCADDY

GCADDY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Location:NY

Posted 24 May 2014 - 11:40 AM


After all this discussion on inspection and testing of the keel structure. Curious how many owners here will do a thorough inspection of their yachts.

. And how many will post the results of inspection. Also what is best practice for said inspection?

#460 Potter

Potter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 980 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 11:47 AM

The skipper I sail with regularly has suggested that if there was a concern about keel/leak, he might inflate the dinghy and tow on a short line. Easy to be wise after the event, but...

Nice idea, but in the reported conditions (30 gusting 50 knots) it would probably become washed over/capsized/break away pretty quickly.

Same with inflating a 12 man liferaft to tow just in case, just not actually practical in those conditions.

 

Like many I believe a transom mounted, hydrostatic release liferaft is the best idea. However, I have also seen the state of liferafts in that position after a few thousand miles...sometimes they can take a real hammering even in cannisters.



#461 LeoV

LeoV

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 24 May 2014 - 12:22 PM

In rough weather ? You will be very tired, and then letting a dink go ?

 

Hydrostatic releases would probably not have worked in this situation, you need 4m of water column on top of it. Even if it was placed at the stern etc.

 

I am a believer in Guy Cotton TPS , but will I survive a night in it ? Though its comfortable in the water, keeping your head out of the water for hours is a fight.

Played a few times with out of date liferafts, and you learn a lot, deploying them is not straightforward, and were is the knife etc.



#462 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:03 PM

Looking closely at the high res photos, I think it is pretty clear that the aft keel bolt had significant prior damage. It's surface shows all the typical signs of that.

The forward two bolts are less clear. Most of their surface shows a clean recent break, but there is an indication of a prior damage small "stress riser" fracture on both - but it only shows right at the resolution of the photo I have.

It is pretty clear that the sequence is that the end bolts fractured, then the middle bolts taking all the loads started working causing the leaks, then the middle bolts destroyed the structure and pulled right thru the hull. Whether the fracture of the end bolts was caused by fateigue or by a prior grounding is difficult to determine from photos - would need discussion with the management company to help determine that. But my personal guess is that at least the aft bolt damage came from a grounding.

In retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight, when they realized they had a leak and made the sat phone call to the management company, they should have agreed to do whatever was necessary to look at the keel bolts (an obvious possible source of a difficult to find leak - and that is true not just in hindsight but should have been obvious at the time) even if that included having to cut bits of the interior/pan to see. If they had done that, they would have seen movement, declared mayday and launched (or at least prepared) the raft (which would have been damn difficult in the conditions and a 12 man raft is Not correct for a 4 man crew).

I believe we should all take away at least three lessons: #1 take leaks seriously. Find the source. Do it immediately because it only gets harder as the water rises. #2 take groundings seriously on fin keel boats. Really seriously inspect the keel bolts, both right after and some time after. It can be expensive and difficult to do the inspection properly, but better than losing lives. #3 rafts need to be deployable - in the dark, in difficult conditions, with the boat heeled, with the crew you have available. And if you are in serious enough trouble to divert, you should probably prep the raft and ditch bag and epirb for immediate use (but actually launching it, particularily a 12 man, when you still hope to make port - no).

#463 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:03 PM

I think the rating rules should require all fin keel boats should have a trip wire from the keel to the raft, so when the keel falls off the raft automatically inflates. They can get a rating credit.

#464 Boo-Yah

Boo-Yah

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 414 posts
  • Interests:Offshore and Star Boats

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:03 PM

Looking closely at the high res photos, I think it is pretty clear that the aft keel bolt had significant prior damage. It's surface shows all the typical signs of that.

The forward two bolts are less clear. Most of their surface shows a clean recent break, but there is an indication of a prior damage small "stress riser" fracture on both - but it only shows right at the resolution of the photo I have.

It is pretty clear that the sequence is that the end bolts fractured, then the middle bolts taking all the loads started working causing the leaks, then the middle bolts destroyed the structure and pulled right thru the hull. Whether the fracture of the end bolts was caused by fateigue or by a prior grounding is difficult to determine from photos - would need discussion with the management company to help determine that. But my personal guess is that at least the aft bolt damage came from a grounding.

In retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight, when they realized they had a leak and made the sat phone call to the management company, they should have agreed to do whatever was necessary to look at the keel bolts (an obvious possible source of a difficult to find leak - and that is true not just in hindsight but should have been obvious at the time) even if that included having to cut bits of the interior/pan to see. If they had done that, they would have seen movement, declared mayday and launched (or at least prepared) the raft (which would have been damn difficult in the conditions and a 12 man raft is Not correct for a 4 man crew).

I believe we should all take away at least three lessons: #1 take leaks seriously. Find the source. Do it immediately because it only gets harder as the water rises. #2 take groundings seriously on fin keel boats. Really seriously inspect the keel bolts, both right after and some time after. It can be expensive and difficult to do the inspection properly, but better than losing lives. #3 rafts need to be deployable - in the dark, in difficult conditions, with the boat heeled, with the crew you have available. And if you are in serious enough trouble to divert, you should probably prep the raft and ditch bag and epirb for immediate use (but actually launching it, particularily a 12 man, when you still hope to make port - no).

 

 

+1

 

adding some are not giving enough thought to the real world/ocean issues that  do and will come along  with keel/hull designs for boats that sail out of sight or land or others.  How do you practically right size rafts for boats that sail with more than ten and deliver with closer to 4?  Should each delivery crew carry their own raft?



#465 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:21 PM


 
adding some are not giving enough thought to the real world/ocean issues that  do and will come along  with keel/hull designs for boats that sail out of sight or land or others.  How do you practically right size rafts for boats that sail with more than ten and deliver with closer to 4?
 Should each delivery crew carry their own raft?[/
quote]

It would make sense to have 2-6 man rafts rather
than 1 12 man raft. That way, there is a spare when the raft attached to the pushpit is washed overboard, tearing the pushpit and lifelines away with it.

#466 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:21 PM

Looking closely at the high res photos, I think it is pretty clear that the aft keel bolt had significant prior damage. It's surface shows all the typical signs of that.

The forward two bolts are less clear. Most of their surface shows a clean recent break, but there is an indication of a prior damage small "stress riser" fracture on both - but it only shows right at the resolution of the photo I have.

It is pretty clear that the sequence is that the end bolts fractured, then the middle bolts taking all the loads started working causing the leaks, then the middle bolts destroyed the structure and pulled right thru the hull. Whether the fracture of the end bolts was caused by fateigue or by a prior grounding is difficult to determine from photos - would need discussion with the management company to help determine that. But my personal guess is that at least the aft bolt damage came from a grounding.

In retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight, when they realized they had a leak and made the sat phone call to the management company, they should have agreed to do whatever was necessary to look at the keel bolts (an obvious possible source of a difficult to find leak - and that is true not just in hindsight but should have been obvious at the time) even if that included having to cut bits of the interior/pan to see. If they had done that, they would have seen movement, declared mayday and launched (or at least prepared) the raft (which would have been damn difficult in the conditions and a 12 man raft is Not correct for a 4 man crew).

I believe we should all take away at least three lessons: #1 take leaks seriously. Find the source. Do it immediately because it only gets harder as the water rises. #2 take groundings seriously on fin keel boats. Really seriously inspect the keel bolts, both right after and some time after. It can be expensive and difficult to do the inspection properly, but better than losing lives. #3 rafts need to be deployable - in the dark, in difficult conditions, with the boat heeled, with the crew you have available. And if you are in serious enough trouble to divert, you should probably prep the raft and ditch bag and epirb for immediate use (but actually launching it, particularily a 12 man, when you still hope to make port - no).

 

 

+1

 

adding some are not giving enough thought to the real world/ocean issues that  do and will come along  with keel/hull designs for boats that sail out of sight or land or others.  How do you practically right size rafts for boats that sail with more than ten and deliver with closer to 4?  Should each delivery crew carry their own raft?

 

you get two 6-man rafts....  duh...



#467 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:49 PM

^^

Two 6 man rafts is generally the preferred solution in any case - easier to handle and some amount of redundancy. I believe (but have not checked it) that multiple rafts are required for cat 0.

Regarding the comments/suggestion on the front page . . .
(1) I don't think it is generally know that the most common hydrostatic release works at 4m depth. It thus would not have released in this case. And with a total 180 capsize like this and rambler, they will be trapped, and not float to the surface even if released.
(2) this case was not "high latitude", it was 'mid latitude" and the water was actually pretty warm - Maine swimming temperature. That said it was cold enough for hypothermia to set in after a few hours in the water. I posted some studies above about immersion suits, but none really address this 'sort of warm water" situation. I still don't understand very well how much time a good immersion suit would give you in this water temp. I know in Maine if I get in the water in my 'arctic" dry suit I am really too warm initially, but the long duration in the water changes that. I wear a dry suit in preference to normal foul weather gear buth because it keels you much dryer, but also because I have believed it gives me a much better chance in the water. I would like to understand better what sort if advantage it gives you, but the reports make it clear that will depend quite a bit on ( a ) how leakproof it is, ( b ) how fat you are, and ( c ) how much air you have managed to trap in the suit/clothing.

I generally prefer to focus (1) on prevention, rather than abandoning/survival afterwards, and (2) on knowledge and procedure rather than 'mandated safety gear".

#468 6924

6924

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 698 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:05 PM

Est,

Struggling to reconcile your plausible explanation with the massive amount of fiberglass that simply tore away. I am believe we are seeing ( admittedly difficult in the photos ) a wide section of the solid glass hull tore clean away with the GRP liner exposed below.

Look at the edges of the failed laminate. Would a clean tear like in the photo occur if a keelbolt failed ?

In a keelbolt failure, one would expect some destroyed structure, but not this much. Figure 15,000 lbs load plus dynamics plus moment are big numbers. I am leaning towards multiple failures: including poor layup.

Also trying to understand keelbolt pattern. I count only 4 holes, assume there are at least 6. Also wondering about a single line of bolts. I always thought keel bolts in modern boats of this size had a double row of keelbolts.

#469 Code 2

Code 2

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:Newport Beach Cali
  • Interests:stuff....

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:34 PM

This is a crop of the high res photo:

attachicon.gifimage.jpg

 

Excuse my ignorance - I have never seen a photo like this.  I see 5 locations where a bolt either was or has been sheared off.  Only 5 bolts?  Im going family day sailing in a little bit on our Beneteau / Platu 25.  Im going to count the bolts.  A big boat like the 40.7 I would imagine had more than 5.  What am I missing?

 

My thoughts and prayers are with the families.



#470 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:40 PM

^^

I believe the middle bolts (and nuts) as they pulled thru the laminate, took a big sheet of fiberglass with them - just a simple pull, peel and tear. But there are certainly better more knowledgeable people here to speculate on that.

Something I would very like to see tested is how long inflatable pfd's hold together in 15' waves/north Atlantic strong gale conditions. Toss a set of full weighted dummies in wearing PFDs and recover them 12 hrs later. The UU case suggests that breaking waves are really not factored into the designs, and I am also puzzled that the USCG planes did not detect any pfd'ed bodies. They had the right search area and could have /should have been able to detect a brightly colored bladder and target that size. It leads me to believe that either all the pfd's came apart/ failed or the crew were not wearing them. And between the two I would have to guess the first.

We really need some serious real world ocean conditions pdf testing . . . We are having too many situations where they don't seem to be doing the job we all expect them to do.

#471 DDW

DDW

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,063 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:45 PM

Imagine attaching an airplane wing to the fuselage by this method. A few bolts down the centerline of the root rib into the fuselage skin. Would you fly in such an airplane? Yet this is how it is being routinely done in these boats. The method is flawed at its most basic concept. I saw a couple of these 40.7s on the hard in the yard in Toronto. My first thought was, "those keels are going to fall off". If I have any surprise at all, it is that more of them have not. It isn't just the tension loads in the bolts or the grid they are bolted to - it is also the crush resistance at the very heavily loaded edge of the keel section. 

 

Add those two Benes to the growing collection of boats with the keels very cleanly and neatly snapped off. I will stipulate that there are circumstances that might take the keel off of any boat. But when that happens there damn sure ought to be half the bottom of that boat missing and complete destruction of the hull as part of the incident. The keel attachment should not be treated as fuse that lets go when loads get too high. 

 

Fin keel loads have been measured with strain gages on several occasions, and papers published. Each time they are higher than was supposed by the designers. But after several papers are published, one can no longer claim ignorance of the loads. 



#472 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,322 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:05 PM

Imagine attaching an airplane wing to the fuselage by this method. A few bolts down the centerline of the root rib into the fuselage skin. Would you fly in such an airplane? Yet this is how it is being routinely done in these boats. The method is flawed at its most basic concept. I saw a couple of these 40.7s on the hard in the yard in Toronto. My first thought was, "those keels are going to fall off". If I have any surprise at all, it is that more of them have not. It isn't just the tension loads in the bolts or the grid they are bolted to - it is also the crush resistance at the very heavily loaded edge of the keel section. 
 
Add those two Benes to the growing collection of boats with the keels very cleanly and neatly snapped off. I will stipulate that there are circumstances that might take the keel off of any boat. But when that happens there damn sure ought to be half the bottom of that boat missing and complete destruction of the hull as part of the incident. The keel attachment should not be treated as fuse that lets go when loads get too high. 
 
Fin keel loads have been measured with strain gages on several occasions, and papers published. Each time they are higher than was supposed by the designers. But after several papers are published, one can no longer claim ignorance of the loads. 

You really can't use Barracuda as a fair example. That boat was lifted by waves and driven into the ground over and over again before the keel failed. The end results look similar, but vastly different circumstances.

#473 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:07 PM

^ 6924 - As near as I can determine (there is very little info on the web), Beneteau uses a grid/liner assembly as the primary structural component. This is a pan that drops into the hull that has ribs (athwartship and longitudinal floors) molded in to it. It is reportedly glued into the hull with an unspecified adhesive.... I suspect a polyester putty, but thats just a guess. The keel bolts pass through the hull and liner, but between the ribs, and have backing plates under the nuts. Some builders carry the keel bolts through the ribs (which would have to be solid in that case), but many builders do it as Beneteau does. As long as the bond between the liner and hull is strong and intact, this construction appears to be adequate for normal use.
If that bond is broken, as might occur by grounding damage or manufacturing defect (and there doesn't appear to be a method of testing for 100% bonding between the liner and hull during production) then the structure is considerably weakened.... just like if the core in the bow of a boat has a shear failure the panel oil-cans badly. IOWs there has to be a solid bond throughout the entire thickness of the assembly, or strength is
greatly compromised.
I believe what happened to Cheeki Ratiki is that the bond between the liner and hull failed, either by prior damage or defect. This failure allowed the hull to flex from the forces exerted on it by the keel in 50 kn winds and 20 ft seas. As the flexing hull allowed the keel to "wobble" back and forth, whatever keel bolts (fore and aft)? that were still secure were bent back and forth until they failed due to fatigue. This placed all the keel loads on the remaining bolts that were in the area of the failing structure, and in short order they pulled out taking some hull laminate with the keel.
This is all speculation of course. I wasn't there, and could find very few pictures of Beneteau structure, and none of the specific 40.7 model. However, my speculation does come from a knowledgeable background... education in engineering, employment by several boatbuilders, and experience doing about a dozen keel structure repairs. Plus, having sailed offshore in similar (a few times worse) conditions.

#474 Parma

Parma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 278 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:09 PM

I don't think the keel is bolted through or to the grid structure; it should be but I don't think it is.

 

I think that on the 40.7 the keel is bolted through the hull to backing plates that essentially serve as gigantic washers but that those backing plates are situated in between the structural stringer grid.



#475 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:13 PM

How do you practically right size rafts for boats that sail with more than ten and deliver with closer to 4?  Should each delivery crew carry their own raft?

 

Yes.



#476 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:19 PM

 

Looking closely at the high res photos, I think it is pretty clear that the aft keel bolt had significant prior damage. It's surface shows all the typical signs of that.

The forward two bolts are less clear. Most of their surface shows a clean recent break, but there is an indication of a prior damage small "stress riser" fracture on both - but it only shows right at the resolution of the photo I have.

It is pretty clear that the sequence is that the end bolts fractured, then the middle bolts taking all the loads started working causing the leaks, then the middle bolts destroyed the structure and pulled right thru the hull. Whether the fracture of the end bolts was caused by fateigue or by a prior grounding is difficult to determine from photos - would need discussion with the management company to help determine that. But my personal guess is that at least the aft bolt damage came from a grounding.

In retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight, when they realized they had a leak and made the sat phone call to the management company, they should have agreed to do whatever was necessary to look at the keel bolts (an obvious possible source of a difficult to find leak - and that is true not just in hindsight but should have been obvious at the time) even if that included having to cut bits of the interior/pan to see. If they had done that, they would have seen movement, declared mayday and launched (or at least prepared) the raft (which would have been damn difficult in the conditions and a 12 man raft is Not correct for a 4 man crew).

I believe we should all take away at least three lessons: #1 take leaks seriously. Find the source. Do it immediately because it only gets harder as the water rises. #2 take groundings seriously on fin keel boats. Really seriously inspect the keel bolts, both right after and some time after. It can be expensive and difficult to do the inspection properly, but better than losing lives. #3 rafts need to be deployable - in the dark, in difficult conditions, with the boat heeled, with the crew you have available. And if you are in serious enough trouble to divert, you should probably prep the raft and ditch bag and epirb for immediate use (but actually launching it, particularily a 12 man, when you still hope to make port - no).

 

 

+1

 

adding some are not giving enough thought to the real world/ocean issues that  do and will come along  with keel/hull designs for boats that sail out of sight or land or others.  How do you practically right size rafts for boats that sail with more than ten and deliver with closer to 4?  Should each delivery crew carry their own raft?

 

you get two 6-man rafts....  duh...

 

Actually, I wouldn't say that's the simple answer. See above about storage and deployment issues. If you've two 6-man rafts for when you have a full boat in a charter situation - where are you going to store BOTH those for quick access in a situation like this capsize?

 

If a 12-man is what's typically required for a boat - having a separate raft specifically for the delivery crew makes much more sense. Keep the big one stowed and the small one up top and ready.

 

I'm surprised that this isn't SOP on deliveries where a completely unsuitable LR is already on the boat. It should be.



#477 DDW

DDW

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,063 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:24 PM

You really can't use Barracuda as a fair example. That boat was lifted by waves and driven into the ground over and over again before the keel failed. The end results look similar, but vastly different circumstances.

I believe it is very similar in the only regard that matters: the keel was allowed to cleanly part from the otherwise undamaged hull, no matter what the cause. The keel bolts (or grid, or whatever) should not be the "fuse" in the keel circuit. There should be no fuse: unintended removal of the keel should be at the cost of no less than the total destruction of the hull. That it leaves so neatly on even one hull, is de facto proof that it is under engineered. Prior damage is no excuse. The fact that you can progressively, neatly remove the keel is in fact worse. It isn't optional equipment. 



#478 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:28 PM

Something I would very like to see tested is how long inflatable pfd's hold together in 15' waves/north Atlantic strong gale conditions. Toss a set of full weighted dummies in wearing PFDs and recover them 12 hrs later. The UU case suggests that breaking waves are really not factored into the designs, and I am also puzzled that the USCG planes did not detect any pfd'ed bodies. They had the right search area and could have /should have been able to detect a brightly colored bladder and target that size. It leads me to believe that either all the pfd's came apart/ failed or the crew were not wearing them. And between the two I would have to guess the first.

We really need some serious real world ocean conditions pdf testing . . . We are having too many situations where they don't seem to be doing the job we all expect them to do.

 

This is a GREAT point Est. I've been wondering the same thing. SAR was on-scene relatively quickly in this case (considering the circumstances) - and no individuals ever spotted. Like you, it definitely makes me wonder about the efficacy of an inflatable in hairy conditions.

 

Aren't most inflatables rated to Type II (near-shore), or even Type III (floatation aid) performance? If so, we might be using them wrong.



#479 6924

6924

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 698 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:34 PM

RKoch and Ester,

1) I know 3 PEs who Design sailboats with liners. None of them consider The Liner when doing their load clacs. ( this was a couple of years ago in a Series of discussions )

they all told me it was impossible to determine if The Liner Grid was property attachef to The Hull diaphram, so they ignored its contrubution.

2) i have Never Seen a solid laminate tear this cleanly

#480 Monkey

Monkey

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,322 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:40 PM


You really can't use Barracuda as a fair example. That boat was lifted by waves and driven into the ground over and over again before the keel failed. The end results look similar, but vastly different circumstances.

I believe it is very similar in the only regard that matters: the keel was allowed to cleanly part from the otherwise undamaged hull, no matter what the cause. The keel bolts (or grid, or whatever) should not be the "fuse" in the keel circuit. There should be no fuse: unintended removal of the keel should be at the cost of no less than the total destruction of the hull. That it leaves so neatly on even one hull, is de facto proof that it is under engineered. Prior damage is no excuse. The fact that you can progressively, neatly remove the keel is in fact worse. It isn't optional equipment. 
I'll respectfully agree to disagree at this time. We don't know the prior history or circumstances that led to failure on Cheeki Rafiki. For all we know, the keel had been removed and not properly reinstalled. At this time, we don't know. Barracuda's hull would've failed if the keel hadn't given out. I can't think of a fin keeled boat that would've endured her scenario. Jumping straight to claiming proof that 40.7's are under engineered is a bit rash. I might agree with you later, but I'll wait for facts.

#481 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:06 PM

. From the pictures I and a lot of other people know in the industry what has failed.

Terrific, please tell us what you know. It can only help the sport to gave us all more educated.

2) i have Never Seen a solid laminate tear this cleanly

Fair point. I actually have seen this, but agree it is not a signature of good laminate.

#482 Rasputin22

Rasputin22

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,782 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:11 PM

This is a very enlightening yet sobering read on just this subject. 

 

https://www.tamus.ed...ence-Report.pdf



#483 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:24 PM

^^ it's a good report . . . But don't you think that was probably a different case/cause than this one? Because that one pretty much pulled away the whole bottom under the keel - clearly I adequate laminate/structure. This one left at least three sheared bolts in place, and made holes in the laminate where the other bolts and nuts pulled thru, rather than bringing off the whole bottom - clearly at least in part fastner failure.

#484 lake Pee

lake Pee

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:27 PM

RKoch and Ester,

1)

2) i have Never Seen a solid laminate tear this cleanly

It is not a solid laminate, it is a cored laminate...

#485 Ishmael

Ishmael

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,285 posts
  • Location:Fuctifino

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:28 PM

RKoch and Ester,

1)

2) i have Never Seen a solid laminate tear this cleanly

It is not a solid laminate, it is a cored laminate...

 

It looks like a cored laminate, but supposedly it is solid glass. I originally thought it looked like foam, but I think it's just thick glass that sheared strangely.



#486 K38BOB

K38BOB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,522 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:37 PM

Looking closely at the high res photos, I think it is pretty clear that the aft keel bolt had significant prior damage. It's surface shows all the typical signs of that.

The forward two bolts are less clear. Most of their surface shows a clean recent break, but there is an indication of a prior damage small "stress riser" fracture on both - but it only shows right at the resolution of the photo I have.

It is pretty clear that the sequence is that the end bolts fractured, then the middle bolts taking all the loads started working causing the leaks, then the middle bolts destroyed the structure and pulled right thru the hull. Whether the fracture of the end bolts was caused by fateigue or by a prior grounding is difficult to determine from photos - would need discussion with the management company to help determine that. But my personal guess is that at least the aft bolt damage came from a grounding.

In retrospect, with 20/20 hindsight, when they realized they had a leak and made the sat phone call to the management company, they should have agreed to do whatever was necessary to look at the keel bolts (an obvious possible source of a difficult to find leak - and that is true not just in hindsight but should have been obvious at the time) even if that included having to cut bits of the interior/pan to see. If they had done that, they would have seen movement, declared mayday and launched (or at least prepared) the raft (which would have been damn difficult in the conditions and a 12 man raft is Not correct for a 4 man crew).

I believe we should all take away at least three lessons: #1 take leaks seriously. Find the source. Do it immediately because it only gets harder as the water rises. #2 take groundings seriously on fin keel boats. Really seriously inspect the keel bolts, both right after and some time after. It can be expensive and difficult to do the inspection properly, but better than losing lives. #3 rafts need to be deployable - in the dark, in difficult conditions, with the boat heeled, with the crew you have available. And if you are in serious enough trouble to divert, you should probably prep the raft and ditch bag and epirb for immediate use (but actually launching it, particularily a 12 man, when you still hope to make port - no).

I think another take away are immersion/survival/dry suits and PLBs as an intermediate solution- perhaps with VHF-DSC and AIS beacons- seems a lot of traffic in the area. Buddy boats on deliveries might be worthwhile too when possible.



#487 Kenny Dumas

Kenny Dumas

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:38 PM

Beneteau should recover and do failure analysis. Brand manager should reallocate his advertising budget if necessary.

#488 Ho'Okele

Ho'Okele

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:45 PM

After all this discussion on inspection and testing of the keel structure. Curious how many owners here will do a thorough inspection of their yachts.


Before I did the '12 Pac Cup I hauled and surveyed and found significant cracks around my keel stub that some fuckwit had cosmetically repaired with a layer of cloth and some red hat. $8k and 30 layers of cloth and epoxy later, it was fixed. I sailed the boat to and from HI, and the keel is fine. Without that inspection, we'd probably have gone for a swim. I also carried my raft at the bottom of the companionway. I fucking worried about that for 5k miles...never again.

Things can go pear shaped faster than we can respond...plan for it.

 

A) What is "Red Hat"?

B)

 

 


You really can't use Barracuda as a fair example. That boat was lifted by waves and driven into the ground over and over again before the keel failed. The end results look similar, but vastly different circumstances.

I believe it is very similar in the only regard that matters: the keel was allowed to cleanly part from the otherwise undamaged hull, no matter what the cause. The keel bolts (or grid, or whatever) should not be the "fuse" in the keel circuit. There should be no fuse: unintended removal of the keel should be at the cost of no less than the total destruction of the hull. That it leaves so neatly on even one hull, is de facto proof that it is under engineered. Prior damage is no excuse. The fact that you can progressively, neatly remove the keel is in fact worse. It isn't optional equipment. 
I'll respectfully agree to disagree at this time. We don't know the prior history or circumstances that led to failure on Cheeki Rafiki. For all we know, the keel had been removed and not properly reinstalled. At this time, we don't know. Barracuda's hull would've failed if the keel hadn't given out. I can't think of a fin keeled boat that would've endured her scenario. Jumping straight to claiming proof that 40.7's are under engineered is a bit rash. I might agree with you later, but I'll wait for facts.

 

- Great point...there are no real standards that I know of for boat repair, and if the boat had been grounded at any point, somebody could have done some shoddy repairs. The lateral nature of the delam. seems to rule out a keel strike. It's just too cleanly ripped with no fore/aft component.

- I bet these poor souls had nearly zero chance...once the keel was off, I bet that boat went in about a half second.

- Why are the (2 fwd, 1 aft) keel bolt through-holes still so clean? I would think that a keel being ripped off would create more damage to the holes in the process.



#489 Rasputin22

Rasputin22

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,782 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:52 PM

Red Hand. A two part epoxy repair paste/putty that is tough as nails. I had the motor on my old VW bus pulled for a burnt valve and the mechanic started picking and wiping at something that he saw on the block. He finally realized that it was a crack in the aluminum block that had been apparently sucessfully repaired with Red Hand. I'd never heard of it before then. Can be drilled and tapped.205467F-p.jpg



#490 ProaSailor

ProaSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts
  • Location:Hanalei, Kauai, Hawaii

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:21 PM

This is a very enlightening yet sobering read on just this subject. 
 
https://www.tamus.ed...ence-Report.pdf

 
Summary: (to be VERY CLEAR, this is not a Beneteau)
 

S/V Cynthia Woods, a Cape Fear 38R... was not adequately designed and built.
...
A direct result of a significantly inadequate amount of hull fiberglass laminate material at the keel joint when the boat was built.

 
cw_backing_plate.png



#491 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:24 PM


RKoch and Ester,

1)

2) i have Never Seen a solid laminate tear this cleanly

It is not a solid laminate, it is a cored laminate...

I can't imagine there is a core directly over the keel. No core material could withstand the compression loads.

#492 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:33 PM


You really can't use Barracuda as a fair example. That boat was lifted by waves and driven into the ground over and over again before the keel failed. The end results look similar, but vastly different circumstances.

I believe it is very similar in the only regard that matters: the keel was allowed to cleanly part from the otherwise undamaged hull, no matter what the cause. The keel bolts (or grid, or whatever) should not be the "fuse" in the keel circuit. There should be no fuse: unintended removal of the keel should be at the cost of no less than the total destruction of the hull. That it leaves so neatly on even one hull, is de facto proof that it is under engineered. Prior damage is no excuse. The fact that you can progressively, neatly remove the keel is in fact worse. It isn't optional equipment. 
I am in agreement. Barracuda took a hell of a pounding, but the keel separated pretty cleanly, as did Cheeki Rafiki's. The keel should not be a fusible link in a boat purposed to be an offshore racer/cruiser. The keel should not come off without complete destruction of the hull.

#493 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:41 PM

RKoch and Ester,

1) I know 3 PEs who Design sailboats with liners. None of them consider The Liner when doing their load clacs. ( this was a couple of years ago in a Series of discussions )

they all told me it was impossible to determine if The Liner Grid was property attachef to The Hull diaphram, so they ignored its contrubution.

2) i have Never Seen a solid laminate tear this cleanly


I agree. Further, IMO there shouldn't even be a liner under the keel bolts, the grid should be heavily glassed to the hull in the region of the mast and keel.

#494 lake Pee

lake Pee

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:45 PM

My condolences to the family and friends of the lost crew.

Many thanks to the unsung heroes of the Maersk container ship that quite astoundingly located the hull and provided the first pictures that supplied the first clues as to what happened to the Cheekie Rafiki. More thanks to the USCG for doing what they do and sorry for the unnecessary criticisms heaped upon them by a bunch of desk jockeys who know nothing about the business of SAR. Also thanks to the US Navy for doing a job that isn't theirs and finding the hull a second time and providing both confirmation of the whereabouts of the life raft (un-deployed) and better pictures of the damaged hull.

It is those pictures I want to talk about, a number of posters here claim the pictures show that the two fwd keel bolts sheered off...I disagree. The pictures show that the two fwd keel bolts are intact, the hex heads of the two bolts are clearly visible, under each bolthead is a round flat washer and under the forward most bolt can be seen a larger square of something...a piece of the top of the keel? It is obvious from these pictures that the two fwd bolts did not fail, they pulled out of the top of the keel.

Anyone familiar with how Beneteau embeds keel bolts into the top of their keels?

The obvious rust around the aft most bolt is a sure indication of water intrusion and crevasse corrosion, probably ongoing for a long time given the size of the rust stain. Failure of the compromised aft bolt was certainly the beginning of the loss of this keel.

A simple bolt group calculation shows that for a linear bolt grouping like this one, the bolts furthest away from the center of the bolt group will be the highest loaded (i.e., the most fwd and the most aft). If the failure of the compromised aft most bolt was the first stage of this keel loss, the extraction of the two fwd most bolts from the top of the keel was the second stage, and the center bolts pulling thru the hull would be the end.

Attached Files



#495 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,197 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:58 PM

http://www.uscgnews....c/4007/2168318/

 

450x300_q75.jpg

 

My condolences to the family and friends of the lost crew.

Many thanks to the unsung heroes of the Maersk container ship that quite astoundingly located the hull and provided the first pictures that supplied the first clues as to what happened to the Cheekie Rafiki. More thanks to the USCG for doing what they do and sorry for the unnecessary criticisms heaped upon them by a bunch of desk jockeys who know nothing about the business of SAR. Also thanks to the US Navy for doing a job that isn't theirs and finding the hull a second time and providing both confirmation of the whereabouts of the life raft (un-deployed) and better pictures of the damaged hull.

It is those pictures I want to talk about, a number of posters here claim the pictures show that the two fwd keel bolts sheered off...I disagree. The pictures show that the two fwd keel bolts are intact, the hex heads of the two bolts are clearly visible, under each bolthead is a round flat washer and under the forward most bolt can be seen a larger square of something...a piece of the top of the keel? It is obvious from these pictures that the two fwd bolts did not fail, they pulled out of the top of the keel.

Anyone familiar with how Beneteau embeds keel bolts into the top of their keels?

The obvious rust around the aft most bolt is a sure indication of water intrusion and crevasse corrosion, probably ongoing for a long time given the size of the rust stain. Failure of the compromised aft bolt was certainly the beginning of the loss of this keel.

A simple bolt group calculation shows that for a linear bolt grouping like this one, the bolts furthest away from the center of the bolt group will be the highest loaded (i.e., the most fwd and the most aft). If the failure of the compromised aft most bolt was the first stage of this keel loss, the extraction of the two fwd most bolts from the top of the keel was the second stage, and the center bolts pulling thru the hull would be the end.

This looks exactly like some of the other failures we have seen under similar circumstances. I feel horrible for the families.

 

One thing is for sure I would probably have the keel pulled and checked on any of these boats if you were planning a big ocean crossing.

 

I hope they pull the hull or at least cut a large section of it out around the keel area for inspection and review to figure out if we need to be doing something different regarding how the boats are being built.



#496 lake Pee

lake Pee

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:00 PM

I can't imagine there is a core directly over the keel. No core material could withstand the compression loads.

I agree with your sentiments, and I don't know what Beneteau claims in its sales literature, but the picture doesn't lie, that is NOT a solid laminate...it is cored.

#497 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:04 PM

^ Hmm.... lake Pee, looking at the high res photos I think you may be right inre the 2 fwd bolts. I DO see hex heads and washers. I can't imagine how they can hold the keel on.... perhaps they were welded to a cage in the keel, and the welds failed?

#498 RKoch

RKoch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:da 'burg

Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:08 PM

o
I can't imagine there is a core directly over the keel. No core material could withstand the compression loads.

I agree with your
sentiments, and I don't know what Beneteau claims in its sales literature, but the picture
doesn't lie, that is NOT a solid laminate...it is
cored.
I think what you are interpreting as core is the adhesive (putty?) used to glue the liner/grid to the hull.

#499 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,197 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:08 PM

My condolences to the family and friends of the lost crew.

Many thanks to the unsung heroes of the Maersk container ship that quite astoundingly located the hull and provided the first pictures that supplied the first clues as to what happened to the Cheekie Rafiki. More thanks to the USCG for doing what they do and sorry for the unnecessary criticisms heaped upon them by a bunch of desk jockeys who know nothing about the business of SAR. Also thanks to the US Navy for doing a job that isn't theirs and finding the hull a second time and providing both confirmation of the whereabouts of the life raft (un-deployed) and better pictures of the damaged hull.

It is those pictures I want to talk about, a number of posters here claim the pictures show that the two fwd keel bolts sheered off...I disagree. The pictures show that the two fwd keel bolts are intact, the hex heads of the two bolts are clearly visible, under each bolthead is a round flat washer and under the forward most bolt can be seen a larger square of something...a piece of the top of the keel? It is obvious from these pictures that the two fwd bolts did not fail, they pulled out of the top of the keel.

Anyone familiar with how Beneteau embeds keel bolts into the top of their keels?

The obvious rust around the aft most bolt is a sure indication of water intrusion and crevasse corrosion, probably ongoing for a long time given the size of the rust stain. Failure of the compromised aft bolt was certainly the beginning of the loss of this keel.

A simple bolt group calculation shows that for a linear bolt grouping like this one, the bolts furthest away from the center of the bolt group will be the highest loaded (i.e., the most fwd and the most aft). If the failure of the compromised aft most bolt was the first stage of this keel loss, the extraction of the two fwd most bolts from the top of the keel was the second stage, and the center bolts pulling thru the hull would be the end.

 

I'm pretty sure that what your calling the heads or hex is simply distorted keel bolts that have sheered clean off. The bolts your looking at should be terminated ie encapsulated in the keel its self  and are typically J shaped or have a similar type of keeper embeded in the keel material its self. We aren't talking Home Depot hex head bolts here.

 

Three of the keel boats appear to be still embedded in the hull and the center section the keel took the hull with it.

 

Why those bolts are broken is anyones guess. Grounding? Simply rough conditions and possibly the boat having rounded up a few times and resting on its side levering the keel an its bolts? Or just hull and keel flex over a number of sailing hours. This is what needs to be found out given how many boats are built in this manner.

 

 

The life raft still on board confirms the concern that many ocean experienced sailors had here is that when things go very wrong in rough conditions its highly unlikely that a raft can be released from a confined spot. I think its pretty important that the sailing community self police and work on better solutions so that we don't have tragic events like this in the future. Avoidable? I think yes... The sailing community just needs to come together and come up with smart solutions that will help reduce the chances of this sort of accident happening in the future.



#500 us7070

us7070

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,681 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:12 PM

It is those pictures I want to talk about, a number of posters here claim the pictures show that the two fwd keel bolts sheered off...I disagree. The pictures show that the two fwd keel bolts are intact, the hex heads of the two bolts are clearly visible, under each bolthead is a round flat washer and under the forward most bolt can be seen a larger square of something...a piece of the top of the keel? It is obvious from these pictures that the two fwd bolts did not fail, they pulled out of the top of the keel.

 

 

that's what i thought when i posted the photo

 

but it doesn't make any sense...

 

what's the hex head doing on that side of the hull?

 

there doesn't seem any way that it could be secured to the keel.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users