Wide-open discussion of the loss of Low Speed Chase

[Tucky]

The single thing that surprised me the most in the incident investigation is the comments the team got about the lack of navigation. That the boats (not just LSC but many of those interviewed) did not use waypoints, know what depths they were in, have a 'planned rounding' or laylines to turn points, etc. Basically the team was told that it was all unplanned "VFR' navigation. Honestly I am not sure I really believe it, and wonder if the team somehow got a mis-impression of the Bay area nav skills and knowledge. In the Ensenada incident the skipper used waypoints and had a plan of key decision points (of course obviously there was then an execution problem) - its hard for me to believe that 'casual cruising' sort of fleet has better nav skills than the SF racing fleet . But if not, and that's the true situation, then there is A LOT of opportunity for navigation skills to be upgraded - and it would improve racing performance and not just safety.

I agree that what I see here is that people (racers and cruisers) have (myself included) become more and more reliant on GPS attached to computers or chart plotters. People are amazed when I tell them that I did a week on the water for my MCA 200T exam without being allowed to use GPS to navigate. It was great fun lots of EP, DR, running fixes etc. Probably 90% of people will put their hand up and say it has been a few years since they took out a chart, pair of dividers and actually used them. Another percent will wonder what EP, DR and running fixes are and hopefully a really small amount will not know how to plot a position on a chart. Charts are like books lets start reading them and not just ones from our local area it is amazing what stories you can get from them.

The courses are out there but I don't think many people who race in the bay have done them as that is not the path that is generally followed. Maybe what we should start offering is something at the RYA Coastal Skipper level done over a few evenings at our clubs each club runs their own program with the members teaching each other. Each member could be made responsible for a class and has to go away and brush up on what they will be teaching that evening. I don't know it is 7:15am so this is a little bit of a brainstorming post (without having had coffee or really woken up!)Then we could do a weekend out on the water with a trip out around the rock pile with the participants having to use charts and no GPS (hopefully when it isn't foggy!!) If we got a number of clubs to do this around the bay then we could even have a race around the islands. Sorry Evans but I most always have to make things a race

I don't think the issue is getting people to be able to read charts and navigate on them in the old way, it is how to get them familiar with the information they need to know (in this particular case it is water depth changing independent of the shape of the shore) and then how to find it on the instruments they have. Folks need to learn how to use their plotters better, not how to work parallel rules.

Pogen points this out well.

 

[estarzinger]

I would suggest this nav program: (1) have a plan for the race before the start, which would include were I wanted to round based on the (wave) forecast, (2) put several waypoints in the gps - at the least one for the approach to the island, one off the end of each of the bars where I wanted to round (perhaps one off the shallows to the west of the island - would depend on wind direction a bit), and one (probably more) somewhere back in the approached to the Bay, (3) after clearing the first waypoint (approach to the island) I would use the bar waypoints laylines to determine when I should tack to add the minimum distance while still rounding where I want to/think is safe. I would want some sort of depth display for the rounding (and also probably for the approaches to the bay) as its a fundamental axiom that you want (at least) two sources of nav info when doing tricky things (in the case plotter and depth sounder) so you can be sure both agree. That;s really not so complicated and most all of us have the gear already in place to do all of that. You would essentially always know where you were( and in what depth at the key points) or at least where relative to your pre-planned route, without having to fixate on a plotter.

It would be interesting to hear from more people who did the race how/what they did the navigation. Did any of you have pre-planned waypoints for the rounding? Did any of you have depth displayed during the rounding (and the approaches back to the bay)? Did anyone use electronic laylines?

I suspect the singlehanders do it somewhat differently than the crewed boats. I know I am a bit more pre-planned when short-handed and a bit more ad-hoc when with crew because I have more resources to react to things.

Ashley's idea for some training and education without GPS is NOT in the expectation that people would d the race without gps or that gps is somehow bad, BUT that without gps you are really forces to create a plan and sail to it and be extra aware of other nav inputs (like depth and clearing angles). So you learn a ton about navigation that you simply don't when you have the plotter there every second telling you exactly where you are. Anyone who did this would learn a lot.

I also agree that e-charting navigation also has its own set of best practices, that are different than paper: both to avoid pitfalls of e-charting nav - such as offsetting waypoints from hazards, zooming and checking route lines for hazards, and using the additional power of e-nav - using waypoints to create clearing angles and laylines, etc.

 

[amperrin]

As I read the rules, you don't need to have a depth sounder (you can have a relatively useless lead line instead). And even if you have one, it does not have to be be displayed above decks or be calibrated in order to meet the offshore equipment requirements.

4.13 Echo Sounder or Lead Line

4.13.1 An echo sounder or lead line shall be provided MoMu1,2,3,4

4.13.2 Two independent echo sounders shall be provided MoMu0

I have personally never had a lead line aboard - any of the old guys have one on their boats? Even on my Express 27 I had depth sounder and speed!

You are right it should read calibrated echo sounder. I personally always calibrate it to show depth under the keel so when I am tired I don't have to figure out the depth of my keel. Also because I move between many different boats. If you are navigating on a depth contour you would have to remember to add that number back in along with tidal correction if you are in an area like the bay of fundy! Remember charted depths are the depth of water at Lowest Astronomical Tide or MLLW (MLLW is generally higher than LAT).

I disagree with an earlier comment that such waypoints would make the race less safe by directing attention to the GPS or chart rather than the island. What happened to LSC is attributable to the fact that they relied on visual identification of dangers. They sailed into an area in which breaking waves rise up suddenly and without any visual warning due to underwater features. They needed to pay more attention to their GPS, depth sounder, and chart, instead of trusting their eyes.

+1

 

[amperrin]

Learning to use electronics properly is extremly important I wasn't trying to suggest they are bad. I think having a good understanding of the information behind the electronics is necessary to understand what you are being told by the electronics and will mean you till use the electronics to it's fullest capability. A few examples below

I just spent two years in a place where you couldn't rely on plotting a GPS position on paper charts. Half the time if you plotted your GPS position (WGS84) onto the paper chart (with the offsets to WGS84) you were on land. So you had to take fixes instead of plotting GPS position.

On the electronic charting you were also on land so we did most of our nav using radar, a large list of waypoints and routes we knew were safe and we used our depth guage a lot. With glacier retreat of 1 meter across the ice front PER DAY there is going to be an awful lot of travelling on land electronically in the next few decades.

When I was on the bridge of the Navy Destroyer they also totally ignored GPS position just using fixes, EP and DR to fix on the electronic chart it was amazing to see them do it. It was a continuous process - do one fix then start another not at all practible on a racing yacht but very intresting none the less.

On the first day of baiting a section of the island using a helicopter the pilot accidently dropped the bait hopper off the helo at about 70 knots 100 feet above the water. We scrambled to the boats and got there just in time for it to sink. The pilot had pushed his GPS position when he dropped it thinking that would be a perfect way of marking the spot for us - not so. More of that story at My link and My link

Anyways I am getting off subject... I guess my point is that people should be able to use all forms of navigation and not rely on a plotter with waypoints.

 

[beauvrolyk]

Learning to use electronics properly is extremly important I wasn't trying to suggest they are bad. I think having a good understanding of the information behind the electronics is necessary to understand what you are being told by the electronics and will mean you till use the electronics to it's fullest capability. A few examples below

I just spent two years in a place where you couldn't rely on plotting a GPS position on paper charts. Half the time if you plotted your GPS position (WGS84) onto the paper chart (with the offsets to WGS84) you were on land. So you had to take fixes instead of plotting GPS position.

...snip...

Paper charts almost always have a date written on them when they were first drawn up and when they were last updated. Therefore, when you look at a chart in the S. Pacific and it says something like last updated 18whatever by Captain Cook. You don't trust it very much. Where do you look on your GPS for this sort of information??

One really should consider the simple fact that the chart data in the GPS has a very real possibility that it's wrong. The Farallon islands are probably where the Garmin thinks they are, but other places.... not so much.

BV

 

[us7070]

I don't think the problem was that people didn't know what water depth they were in...,

The problem was that they thought their water depth was a safe, when it wasn't.

So, it's not a problem with instruments or charts, but a deficiency of knowledge, which can be addressed by education.

This is why the report goes through the explanation of wave dynamics, and recommends that future SAS courses include this material.

 

[amperrin]

Learning to use electronics properly is extremly important I wasn't trying to suggest they are bad. I think having a good understanding of the information behind the electronics is necessary to understand what you are being told by the electronics and will mean you till use the electronics to it's fullest capability. A few examples below

I just spent two years in a place where you couldn't rely on plotting a GPS position on paper charts. Half the time if you plotted your GPS position (WGS84) onto the paper chart (with the offsets to WGS84) you were on land. So you had to take fixes instead of plotting GPS position.

...snip...

Paper charts almost always have a date written on them when they were first drawn up and when they were last updated. Therefore, when you look at a chart in the S. Pacific and it says something like last updated 18whatever by Captain Cook. You don't trust it very much. Where do you look on your GPS for this sort of information??

One really should consider the simple fact that the chart data in the GPS has a very real possibility that it's wrong. The Farallon islands are probably where the Garmin thinks they are, but other places.... not so much.

BV

For those who own Garmin go to page 6 of My link to see how to check/change your chart datum. If you don't own a Garmin it is still a well written article. The other issue we had during Search and Rescue exercises is that some of the Garmins were set up as decimals of a degree and some set up with seconds. So important to note what format you are using there when giving your position.

 

[amperrin]

I don't think the problem was that people didn't know what water depth they were in...,

The problem was that they thought their water depth was a safe, when it wasn't.

So, it's not a problem with instruments or charts, but a deficiency of knowledge, which can be addressed by education.

This is why the report goes through the explanation of wave dynamics, and recommends that future SAS courses include this material.

Yes agree that is why we addressed wave dynmaics in our Sea Survival training in May/June. But the report also shows that there are many more issues at hand here not just wave dynamic education with regards to education - instruments and charting being one of them.

 

[K38BOB]

As I read the rules, you don't need to have a depth sounder (you can have a relatively useless lead line instead). And even if you have one, it does not have to be be displayed above decks or be calibrated in order to meet the offshore equipment requirements.

4.13 Echo Sounder or Lead Line

4.13.1 An echo sounder or lead line shall be provided MoMu1,2,3,4

4.13.2 Two independent echo sounders shall be provided MoMu0

I have personally never had a lead line aboard - any of the old guys have one on their boats? Even on my Express 27 I had depth sounder and speed!

You are right it should read calibrated echo sounder. I personally always calibrate it to show depth under the keel so when I am tired I don't have to figure out the depth of my keel. Also because I move between many different boats. If you are navigating on a depth contour you would have to remember to add that number back in along with tidal correction if you are in an area like the bay of fundy! Remember charted depths are the depth of water at Lowest Astronomical Tide or MLLW (MLLW is generally higher than LAT).

?????

From OYRA equipment list link presumably used by SFYC in Crewed Farallones Race (CF)

4.13 Echo Sounder or Lead Line

4.13.1 An echo sounder or lead line shall be provided

From SSS in Singlehanded Farallones race SSS SI link

/monthly_08_2012/post-1447-080702300%201345309081_thumb.jpg

From BAMA in Doublehanded Farallones BAMA DHF w SI

/monthly_08_2012/post-1447-046368800%201345310131_thumb.jpg

One benefit of lead line mentioned in the piloting books is to place wax in the hollow bottom to get a sample of the bottom (sand for instance- mud might be better wo wax).

And while I embrace the recommendations of additional training through courses/seminars, sometimes a picture in a skippers meetings a couple of days before the race with mentoring peers is worth a 1000 waypoints and contour lines. The clubs that hold skippers meetings for Farallones races have offered support to those that don't. I can also see more wave theory/references included in SI, websites, and Skippers meeting

I can see adding this one to seminars, sailing instructions, skippers meetings link- USS report pg 80

/monthly_08_2012/post-1447-072666000%201345313893_thumb.jpg

My preference is to have my sounder correlated to chart

And this is kind of cool...

 

[K38BOB]

I disagree with an earlier comment that such waypoints would make the race less safe by directing attention to the GPS or chart rather than the island. What happened to LSC is attributable to the fact that they relied on visual identification of dangers. They sailed into an area in which breaking waves rise up suddenly and without any visual warning due to underwater features. They needed to pay more attention to their GPS, depth sounder, and chart, instead of trusting their eyes.

+1

Please provide the post

You might be confusing a race comm. selectively placing a virtual mark weeks in advance of a race through sailing instructions with that of the responsible party planning their voyage with all available tools including waypoints- electronic GPS or a pencil mark on a chart.

I can see a prudent skipper laying in a string of waypoints off the NW corner of SE Farallones/Maintop island with clever names such as

NWSEFswell10ft (in x factor of realtime radio report of sig wave height)

NWSEFwave 12 ft and so on.

You pick your x factor from all the new training/refs. Seems like x=4 is a good start. Place the waypoint at that depth.

Very different scenario's.

Also remember that the distance between Middle Farallones and SE Faralones can be nearly continuously breaking from race reports. So eyeballs on the venue is important too.

Its been estimated that 7500 raceboat roundings of the Farallones . The majority without GPS, deck/handheld VHF, chartplotters. How did they do it? One rule of thumb I read here was stand off 4 (?) waves out from the breaking waves. A dynamic self calibrating reference point to the conditions. Would be interesting if someone crunched those numbers to see if the old timers were wise or lucky.

 

[stranded]

What about the way reflected / refracted waves can either trip - up ( cause to break prematurely ) or double the size of an incoming swell ? Safe depth requirement can suddenly double or triple.

 

[K38BOB]

What about the way reflected / refracted waves can either trip or double the size of an incoming swell ? Safe depth requirement can suddenly double or triple.

I've been waiting for someone to bring that up- good show! Diffracted also.

I don't believe that was included. Nor the mixed seastates from wave systems of different origins (wind directions). This latter point was the biggest concern with DHF 2012 with wind shifting from the south to west to northwest during the race.

 

[K38BOB]

quote

Thanks and sincere condolences on the loss of Harvey in DHF 1999.

I think we need to add more education on wave refraction and how the waves add from different directions. I hear too much about bad luck or sneakers or roque waves. In the area of these islands- its guaranteed that waves will combine in unusual ways- its not a question of if but when and if you happened to be there. The further you stand off, the better it is. You know that.

waves

quote

Great link - a picture says a 1000 words.

A book I read recently called the Wave will make you a little more wary as well. It is written by the same author as Devils Teeth (about the FI)

The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks and Giants of the Ocean Susan Casey

Amazon link- The wave by S Casey

Amazon link- Devil's teeth by S Casey

 

[sfigone]

On the subject of personal safety equipment, here is an interesting DSC capable radio from built for divers - but looks like it would be an excellent thing to have clipped onto a PFD or in your bum bag. I've just ordered one and will see how it goes:

http://www.alertdiver.com/?articleNo=480

cheers

 

[estarzinger]

In case anyone is looking for education/training material in order to follow-up/implement the report recommendations . . . . there is a free National Weather service on-line seminar specifically on Shallow Water Wave behavior at: http://www.meted.ucar.edu/marine/SWW/

This seminar brings appendix D alive in a professionally constructed interactive seminar, and is more complete and 'sophisticated' than appendix D was able to be, including aspects of wave orientation, refraction, current, etc. to explain shallow water wave behavior.

There are also several other more advanced wave seminars, and tons of weather training, available on MetEd (all FREE!)

 

[pogen]

Lawsuit Filed

http://www.mercuryne...sailing-tragedy

Lawsuit: Captain at fault for Farallones sailing tragedy

By Joshua Melvin

[email protected]

Posted: 12/13/2012 06:20:11 AM PST

Updated: 12/13/2012 06:20:19 AM PST

SAN FRANCISCO -- A former San Francisco Giants executive whose daughter was among five people killed in an April boat crash says errors by the vessel's captain caused the tragedy off the Farallon Islands, according to a lawsuit against the boat owner.

Captain Alan Cahill allegedly "cut corners" when he sailed the 38-foot Low Speed Chase into a dangerous area that other boats avoided during Full Crew Farallones Race. That decision led to waves flipping the boat and killing Alexis Busch and four others, her father Corey Busch wrote in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in San Francisco Superior Court.

The suit targets boat owner James Bradford, who was one of three survivors.

The crash was one of the worst yacht racing accidents in the Bay Area in decades and marked the only fatalities in the history of the annual race that was first held in 1907.

Similar to the lawsuit, a report by a national governing body for sailing concluded the April 14 crash was the result of the boat's path through a shallow stretch of water near the islands. The July 31 probe from US Sailing says experts believe the decision on the boat's course was not made "with an understanding of the risks." Cahill, 36, of Tiburon, didn't survive the crash.

Low Speed Chase was one of 49 boats that left from the St. Francis Yacht Club to make the journey around the uninhabited islands that sit about 27 miles west of San Francisco, the report says. As the Chase started toround the islands, it passed over an underwater ledge that some of the other boats were purposely sailing around. The ledge creates conditions where waves can grow to 30 feet in height, the suit says.

Low Speed Chase was flipped and tossed onto the island by waves, which dumped all but one crew member into the water.

Besides Bradford, Bryan Chong, 38, and Nick Vos, 26, survived. But Marc Kasanin, 46, of Belvedere; Elmer Morrissey, 32, of Ireland; Jordan Fromm, 25, of Ross; Busch, 26, of Larkspur were among the dead. The bodies of Cahill and Busch were never recovered, the report says.

Reached by phone Wednesday, Bradford declined to discuss the suit, saying, "It's a private issue between me and the survivors."

"I almost lost my life too," he said, adding that his friends died. "It was horrible, even to survive."

Bradford said he has not faced criminal charges in connection with the crash.

While the US Sailing report focuses on the boat's course, it also says different life jackets could also have saved lives. Specifically, the report noted, higher buoyancy jackets that inflate automatically might have helped. The experts also said thigh straps to keep the jackets secure could have improved survival chances.

However, in the process of their investigation the experts learned that other racers didn't comply with minimum safety equipment standards.

"It is not clear whether these skippers were unaware of the requirements or simply ignored them," the report says.

In the suit, Busch's family doesn't list a dollar amount, but they're seeking compensation for funeral expenses as well as punitive damages, which are intended to punish bad behavior, from Bradford. Michael Kelly, an attorney for the Busch family, said that because no criminal action has been taken against the boat owner, the family wants to hold him accountable for an avoidable tragedy.

"It's become clear to them that this shouldn't have happened," he said in interview.

 

[Rondog]

Typical...

 

[pogen]

Well I don't understand how if the "Captain" (hired pro skipper-for-the-day) is responsible, how they are suing the owner, who was present, rather than the 'Captains' estate. The 'captain' is dead, the owner survived. Unless as owner you are always the master? Or is it the usually deep pockets, you get to pay 100% even if you are only 1% responsible, because you are the one that has money.

I would really like some informed insight on this issue.

 

[Caca Cabeza]

Anyone surprised?

 

[Raz'r]

not surprising, but this is yet another item an owner needs to contemplate if running a race boat. I think I had a $2m umbrella liability policy when I was campaigning, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't adequate. You likely need $3-4m per crew member if your estate has to pay out in the event of an "all hands lost" event.