Cheeki Rafiki boss GUILTY!

[wjhutchings]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I believe the case is (or at least bbc says so) of bolts known to be broken before they departed the UK for their trip to the other side.

A short reply to "how" is you make the bolts so that the NEVER EVER get even close to 99% in foreseeable use of the boat (say 100 years or so). Quite easy and inexpensive as the bolts are made of steel rater than gold.

Look at some 50 years old grp boats - their keels are still on. If building like that was possible before (before we had CAD and computer assisted stress calculations) it is clearly still viable today.

And it is not so much a designer or boatbuilder problem as it is the problem of the person who selects a tool for a job. That's you and me.

Here - 11 pairs of 12mm bolts, ballast slab 3000 pounds. Boat designed in Sweden 1967. These bolts live in keel pockets and can be easily accessed and replaced at any haulout.

So, this is the short and the long of it. There are many ways to build a boat. Nobody force feeds flimsy keels into our throats. We choose our boats.

Very sad lives were lost while the tragedy could have been avoided.

Big hug,
b.

I think the defining factor was that the boat had reported grounding 3 times in the preceding three years, no matter how gentle the crew may have thought the grounding was unless the boat is built to take the ground it is bound to have done some damage. if the keel had been displaced in what ever direction this would have stretched the keel bolts that would have weakened them, if the keel had been displaced on all three groundings then the stretching of the bolts could have caused them to fail, not immediately but eventually. Of course there were three reported groundings wonder how many others there were. Also the other factor she was being operated outside of her permitted area and on expired certification.

[transmitterdan]

A team examined several sister boats and found evidence of damage due to groundings. They also found that the evidence is often hidden from view owing to the inner liner construction hiding the cracking.

Many people underestimate the forces involved in a grounding. They imagine that unless crew were subjected to violent deceleration that the grounding was "soft". But high aspect keels with ballast down low that have to stop the boat even softly will undergo serious stress. The lever arm is long and the area of stress is small. So the pressure can easily exceed the layup capacity and break the glass. Especially when there is little or no load spreading around the keel bolts on the inside.

[thinwater]

First I heard keel bolts were known to be broken. That is staggering.

It is also apparent that the laminate was under strength and that backing plates were too small (closely related items), since some of the bolts simply tore through. You would expect the fore and aft bolts to flex and fail once the center pairs failed. But you should not rip a hole. That can easily be engineered out.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by wjhutchings

Also the other factor she was being operated outside of her permitted area and on expired certification.

I really don't think the boat knew it was out of the permitted area or that the certification expired. Doubt that is a factor in the keel falling off.

[a64pilot]

Some designs I guess are more tolerant to groundings than others I guess.
On delivery I did something stupid and ran out of the channel on the St lucie pass, more bounced off than went aground, but it was a sudden stop from 7 kts that threw everyone down that wasn't sitting down.

Of course some things are acceptable in race boats that are not in boats for normal use

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I really don't think the boat knew it was out of the permitted area or that the certification expired. Doubt that is a factor in the keel falling off.

Sure, the boat could care less, but for the lawyers, it bolsters their argument that there was negligence on the owners' part that lead to the tragedy. Ipso facto.....

[wjhutchings]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I really don't think the boat knew it was out of the permitted area or that the certification expired. Doubt that is a factor in the keel falling off.

No of course the boat didn't know it is inanimate, though it may have been a factor in the keel bolts failing.

I,as a Mariner of some 50 years experience, would opine if she had been operating within 60 miles of a safe haven as per her certification and her keel bolts failed, the chances of rescuing the crew would have been incalculably better, in fact the crew may have been able to bring her in themselves. No possible in the middle of the Atlantic.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I really don't think the boat knew it was out of the permitted area or that the certification expired. Doubt that is a factor in the keel falling off.

True, but for the jury, it would be more nails in Douglas Innes' coffin. There is also the chance that if the boat were within easy rescue range (60 mi) that some of the crew could have been rescued in time, as they were reports that they were aware it was in trouble, so they had precious time to turn towards shelter, and the RNLS, or whoever does their S & R.

Bloody liner built boats, anyway!


A64pilot:

It might be prudent to withdraw and inspect your keel bolts while it is hauled.

Ann

[a64pilot]

Ann, I don't have keel bolts, it's a full keel.
However not long after I dove her and you could see on the right side of the keel near the front edge a decent sized gouge about a foot or two long, a little glass and it was easily filled first haul out, maybe a $100 repair.
In honesty I knew I would be running aground every once in awhile where I lived so I bought a boat that was tolerant of that. So of course I have never run aground since then.
Uh-oh, did I just invoke some bad luck?

[Pelagic]

If I understand correctly, she was registered as a "Commercial Yacht" with paying crew/pax.

If YES then that would be the key LEGAL issue as the company's obligation is more set in precedent.... to look after their paying customers, same as a Cruise Ship.

Were the guys lost paying customers ?

The other daming part if commercial would be the mandatory inspections and licensing for Foreign Going passenger carrier.
Appears she was only licensed for Home Trade, 60nm safety waters.

The civil court cases by the families will gut the company if they stick around.

[justwaiting]

[QUOTE=Pelagic;2433478]If I understand correctly, she was registered as a "Commercial Yacht" with paying crew/pax.

If YES then that would be the key LEGAL issue as the company's obligation is more set in precedent.... to look after their paying customers, same as a Cruise Ship.

Were the guys lost paying customers ?

The other daming part if commercial would be the mandatory inspections and licensing for Foreign Going passenger carrier.
Appears she was only licensed for Home Trade, 60nm safety waters.

The civil court cases by the families will gut the company if they stick around./QUOTE]

The findings were against both Storm Force Coaching and Douglas Innes so both would be defendants in a civil case. There could be no hiding behind corporate veils.

I expect that there will be appeals because Douglas Innes would probably have nothing to lose.

Then there is the question of if there will be a retrial on the manslaughter charges that the jury were unable to come to a decision on?

I think this saga has a long way to run and the cases could still be in the courts for a number of years.

[JPA Cate]

It seems to me that these were wrongful deaths, and that the negligence was criminal. So, now I'm wondering why the jury got hung..........

Ann

[Factor]

At the risk of stating the obvious they were not unanimously satisfied that the the elements of the offence were proven and that all statutory and common law defences were negated.

[transmitterdan]

I read in one account that 10 of 11 jurors had decided guilty on negligence. Not sure of the juror tabulation on manslaughter.

But the jury heard a lot of details we are not getting from the press. It seems not so cut and dried as we would like. As are most things in life.

[joel383]

Originally Posted by Factor

At the risk of stating the obvious they were not unanimously satisfied that the the elements of the offence were proven and that all statutory and common law defences were negated.

Not so obvious to a lot of folks who often look to the emotion of the situation.

Thank you.