Oyster Problems?

[jmaja]

In one of the documents it was said that the Oyster 825 keel structure had a safety factor of 2.5 for the 90 degree knock down case. I wonder what that means? In top of the safety factor of about 3 built into ISO 12215-9 or as the only safety factor?

Sounds very bad, if it was the only safety factor, but quite OK, if that actually was the compliance factor against ISO 12215-9.

In the latter case, or actually in both cases, it sounds like the structure was not build as it was calculated to get that safety factor. Some laminate or bond was not as strong as expected, since it seems like the thickness and structure was as designed.

It looks quite bad for Oyster that they didn't see anything wrong during their inspection and they see leaking keel joint as normal.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Nah, I don't agree, the investigation report from that accident show composite lugs torn away , not the titanium not the aluminium... but the point remain, airliner builders spend fortunes with safety in mind,, I will say Planes today are much safer than in the past, still I cant found a Plane who loose a wing in normal flight conditions, this issue remind me the McDonnell Douglas infamous DC10 in the early days, a plane plagued with defects, just after hundreds of victims the builder rectify the isues, and sad,, almost send the Firm to the bankruptcy...

In the picture show a Airbus A 350 wing deflection test.. just figurate..

So, with the boat industry something happen in the wrong direction , instead of make boats safer , they make boats for the throw away minimum standar , minimum requirements market sector, and I'm not pointing Oyster in this case , then and this is really funy, we have all of those EC A , ISSO big pile of dogshit sucking a part of the cake,,, Some builders take the new technology and materials and make really wonderful
boats , others just see a way to increase profit doing Crap and selling the product like Wowww!! I guess those stupid Vampires looking in how to squeeze to the last cent in a production line at the cost of the quality cant think for just one second that there is familys and real persons crossing oceans.

Neil: We will just have to agree to disagree about whether wings can be pulled off the aircraft by the pilot (or autopilot).

Fortunately, our opinions about cruising sailboat structure are very much aligned.

Cheers,

Steve

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by poiu

A lot of discussion there involves the looseness of the bolts, yet they were not the part that failed. Would it not be expected to be tightening up the bolts in the first year after new to allow for shrinkage in the sealant?

I would guess the problem with the gap and leak was due to flexing of the keel stub. The bolts weren't really loose and tensioning them didn't really help, which suggest that there was no gap right at the bolts, only away from them due to flexing of the stub when the keel was hung from it instead of compressed against it.

[olaf hart]

Originally Posted by minaret

I would agree with most of this. The problem is that many of the newer designs suffer serious damage from even soft groundings, or even just from pounding when sailing to windward. You can forget the dent in the keel when most of them are made of cast iron these days instead of lead! Which of course just transfers the load (and the damage) to more expensive areas of the boat to fix.

Our local club has a policy of leaving all new euro boats in slings in the yard,and don't let them sit on their keel alone.

It is interesting to see the amount of hull deflection some of them have just on their keel.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

The preliminary report from the surveyors hired by Capt. Connoni and the owner mentions that layup samples were taken from certain areas. At the time of the writing of the preliminary report, those results were not there.

Thank you neilpride, for posting those links. I felt quite pleased that the results of the survey supported Capt. Connoni's statement that the vessel had not been grounded while under sail. Clearly, it was "grounded" in the Caribbean when they were still troubleshooting the keel movement problem.

I'm sure polux knows far more than me about the construction of new types of boats, so for me, your posting the links has increased my understanding, partly of the construction, but also as to the denial of the problem by the builder.

Thank you very much.

Ann

You're welcome! but I think is fair to say Thanks to the Cap, Alesio.
For posting the whole true In my opinion...

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Panope

Neil: We will just have to agree to disagree about whether wings can be pulled off the aircraft by the pilot (or autopilot).

Fortunately, our opinions about cruising sailboat structure are very much aligned.

Cheers,

Steve

Then all is ok since we don't own planes LoL
Cheers!!

[Prairie Chicken]

A pilot can definitely over stress an a/c in flight, usually with excessive control inputs at higher than normal speeds. The ops manual always specifies a maneuvering speed not to be exceeded in turbulent conditions in order not to over stress the aircraft & it's parts, and a Never Exceed speed for the same reasons. But we're talking about boats, not planes.

I'm thankful and amazed there was no loss of life in this case. And my Oyster envy has gone way down!

[neilpride]

Well someone test those wings really well, Nuts!!!!


https://youtu.be/Ra_khhzuFlE

Boeing 707 roll over....

[Svanen]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

They had been having a lot of boat trouble before hand.

That's certainly consistent with other accounts I have heard.

Why did they depart South Georgia for Cape Town in late April: i.e., at the onset of winter in the southern hemisphere?

Originally Posted by estarzinger

The owners were also a bit of scam artists, for example noted as claiming to be British lords . . . But in fact were not on the lords list at all.

Carl and Tracey (!) See "The Lord and Lady Delusions of Grandeur".

FWIW, I'm inclined to think that a purchased manorial "title" has much in common with a bona fide peerage: both are archaic, snobbish nonsense that have no place in contemporary society.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Then all is ok since we don't own planes LoL
Cheers!!

Oh how I wish it were true. I'm down to four now but there is hope as only two are kept flyable. This aviation disease has been a real bastard. Try not to catch it. It is almost as bad as boats........

Steve

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Panope

Oh how I wish it were true. I'm down to four now but there is hope as only two are kept flyable. This aviation disease has been a real bastard. Try not to catch it. It is almost as bad as boats........

Steve

I always thought it was one of the few things that was actually worse, $$$-wise at least. Probably just trying to make myself feel better . . . again.

Btw, the seaplane's my fav.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Panope

Oh how I wish it were true. I'm down to four now but there is hope as only two are kept flyable. This aviation disease has been a real bastard. Try not to catch it. It is almost as bad as boats........

Steve

Haaaaaa , really nice,I've always said that if I had not been related to vessels I would have chosen aircrafts....

[Svanen]

Originally Posted by Exile

[T]he other problem I see is that boats aren't subject to the type of maintenance & inspection regimen that accompanies the aviation … industry

Subjecting leisure boating to legislated annual inspections similar to those imposed on general aviation would certainly result in substantially increased costs of ownership; but I'm far from convinced would yield significantly increased safety.

We're talking about a very few isolated accidents, which - while serious, obviously - are extremely uncommon: especially in older, more heavily-built yachts. Too, if standards do need 'tightening up' it should be done at the design and construction stage, not an annual inspection regime applicable to all small craft with attendant recurring expense.

P.S. FWIW, in my experience most AMEs (or A&Ps, as the Americans call them) fall into one of two categories. The first is used to working for airlines and other large corporations with virtually unlimited budgets: their approach is to refuse to sign off any aircraft without first replacing all components that show the slightest amounts of wear. The second operates out of a pick-up truck and essentially sells a signature: approving almost any aircraft, with only the most cursory inspection and perhaps a few token 'band-aid' repairs. It is difficult to find a happy medium, i.e. a licensed mechanic who is both pragmatic and conscientious.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Svanen

Subjecting leisure boating to legislated annual inspections similar to those imposed on general aviation would certainly result in substantially increased costs of ownership; but I'm far from convinced would yield significantly increased safety.

Agreed, and I wouldn't advocate for this type of regulation for recreational boating either. But the Euro classification stds. seem almost irrelevant to the consumer at best, and potentially misleading at worst. It used to be that one could rely on brand rep to choose the boat best suited for the intended purpose, but that seems more muddled now. More disclosure vs. glossy marketing would be nice, but I'm not sure how to encourage the industry to do that. I probably know just enough to do my own due diligence, but I'm afraid many buyers may not even know what they're supposed to know!

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

Speaking strictly as a layman, I would agree with much of what jmaja posted too. But the other problem I see is that boats aren't subject to the type of maintenance & inspection regimen that accompanies the aviation or even the automotive industry, there don't seem to be standards that are practicable for educating the consumer, and serious boat failures are often fixed at the nearest available yard and not always accounted for. ...

It seems to me that the obvious solution to that is mandatory inspections to boats made by independent and competent certified bodies. Italy for instance does that and the inspections are made by RINA (Royal Institute of Naval Architects).

But it seems to me that this is not a very popular measure around these parts.

On many countries cars and airplanes are subjected to regular inspections, boats also but not in so many countries.