Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 04-12-2017, 20:48   #31
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Caribbean
Boat: Lagoon 450
Posts: 768
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawbonz View Post
I read some, but didn't want to spend a lot of time looking for details, primarily because I am not sure which ones you are trying to point out. What was your purpose/thought in posting this link?
Some posters on this thread see the elimination of safety hatches as a good thing. All fine in theory. In the real world, if you look at the skippers account of their capsize they used the safety hatches to extract immersion suits, ditch bag etc. It would seem from previous posts that Roberston and Cain have convinced the standard setters that because inversion likelihood is low then there is no need for them. It is not until one does invert and the crew is trapped inside and drowns/suffocates that the thinking will get reversed. Much like dangerous intersections on roads not having traffic lights installed until some people get killed. Seat belts in cars - same sort of thing, not needed until you are in an accident. Escape hatches are not a marketing invention, they have been used in Submarines, tanks, aircraft, buses etc etc etc, their use is minimal (hopefully) but they are there for a reason and it is not about ventilation or the view.
__________________

Bean Counter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 20:56   #32
Registered User
 
Sawbonz's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Florida
Boat: 2015 Shearwater 25LTZ
Posts: 179
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bean Counter View Post
Some posters on this thread see the elimination of safety hatches as a good thing. All fine in theory. In the real world, if you look at the skippers account of their capsize they used the safety hatches to extract immersion suits, ditch bag etc. It would seem from previous posts that Roberston and Cain have convinced the standard setters that because inversion likelihood is low then there is no need for them. It is not until one does invert and the crew is trapped inside and drowns/suffocates that the thinking will get reversed. Much like dangerous intersections on roads not having traffic lights installed until some people get killed. Seat belts in cars - same sort of thing, not needed until you are in an accident. Escape hatches are not a marketing invention, they have been used in Submarines, tanks, aircraft, buses etc etc etc, their use is minimal (hopefully) but they are there for a reason and it is not about ventilation or the view.


I see your point, but... Playing devil’s advocate here:

All intersections don’t have lights, that is until traffic volume is high enough. Seat belts, as you point out, aren’t necessary until a wreck happens and even then may not be enough to save a life. Escape hatches don’t guarantee safety, but the incidence of leaking and complaints about it is apparently pretty high. Hence the decision to remove them.

While not ideal I wondered myself if I couldn’t get out via the overhead hatches if need be. I may have to wait a few days to lose some weight first!
__________________

Sawbonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 22:41   #33
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 797
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenRbrts View Post
Here is a photo of the hatch repair. My long term fix will be similar with an aluminum bar instead of wood. We glued blocks of plastic with bolts and the bolts are attached to the plastic. Our backup plan was to drill through the plexiglass and bolt that to the wood. Fortunately the glue worked so we didn't have to drill. Attachment 159738
Nice fix!!

The weight battle involving too many spare parts just changed in my mind. In addition to materials to rig a rudder on my list, I'm now adding escape hatch repair material. I wonder if it would it be paranoid to pre-cut a piece of marine ply a couple of inches larger than the opening and a similar rig with a threaded rod and a bar... all of which could be installed from the inside? The same chunk could serve instead as an emergency rudder if needed?
I'm sure if this was pre-built and stowed, murphy's law would ensure that neither the rudder or the escape hatch would ever fail.
cyan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 23:29   #34
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz
Boat: Boatless Again
Posts: 4,584
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

From iso 12217-2, which I believe is the current CE requirements:

7.11 Habitable multihull boats
7.11.1 Habitable boats as defined in 3.1.9, if considered to be vulnerable to inversion when used in their design
category according to 7.11.2 or 7.11.3, shall comply with:
a) the requirements for inverted buoyancy given in 7.12, and
b) the requirements for means of escape given in 7.13.
7.11.2 A catamaran sailing boat is considered to be vulnerable to inversion if any of the following apply:
a) the maximum transverse righting lever for the boat in the minimum operating condition is less than 135 %
of the minimum requirement for the design category according to 7.8 (the maximum transverse righting
lever shall be calculated using the method of Annex C or using G.2.1); or
b) the longitudinal righting moment area for the boat in the minimum operating condition is less than 135 % of
the minimum requirement for the design category according to 7.9 (the longitudinal righting moment area
shall be calculated using Annex H); or
c) the wind speed at which the standard sail area is required to be reefed according to calculations performed
in accordance with Annex G is less than
— 25 kn for design category A,
— 22 kn for design category B,
— 19 kn for design category C,
— 16 kn for design category D.

7.12 Buoyancy when inverted
7.12.1 For habitable sailing multihulls which are considered to be vulnerable to inversion according to 7.11.2
or 7.11.3, it shall be shown by calculation using Annex D that, when inverted and/or fully flooded, the volume
of buoyancy, expressed in cubic metres (m3), in the hull, fittings and equipment is greater than the number
represented by (mLDC/850), thus ensuring that it is sufficient to support the mass of the loaded boat by a
margin. Habitable parts of the boat may not be included. Dedicated flotation elements (see 3.6.6) and watertight
compartments not containing habitable parts of the boat may be included. Apart from these, allowance for
trapped bubbles of air shall not be included.
7.12.2 The disposition of the buoyancy of the boat shall be such that, when the boat is inverted, it is highly
probable that the boat will float with the upright design waterline less than 10° from the horizontal.
7.12.3 Where non-habitable compartments accessible via watertight hatches or doors are used to
demonstrate positive flotation after inversion, the compartment shall be constructed to watertightness degree 1
(see ISO 11812), with hatches and doors satisfying the watertightness requirements for degree 2 of ISO 12216.
7.12.4 Closures to access openings into watertight compartments described in 7.12.3 shall be clearly marked
in upper case letters not less than 4,8 mm high:
“KEEP SHUT WHEN UNDER WAY”
Where crew have access to both sides of such a closure, this marking shall be provided on both sides.
NOTE “Under way” has the meaning “not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground”.
7.12.5 Where flotation elements are used, the requirements of Annex E apply

7.13 Escape after inversion
7.13.1 For all habitable boats considered to be vulnerable to inversion according to 7.11.2 or 7.11.3, a “means
of escape” to the exterior when the boat is inverted shall be accessible from each habitable part of the boat.
A “means of escape” may comprise any of the following:
a) a dedicated escape hatch, or
b) a fixed panel held in place by a sealing strip and removable bead, or
c) a “break-out panel” comprising either a predefined area of hull skin which can be broken through in an
emergency using special tools, or a fixed panel that can be broken with a sharp implement, or
d) for design category C and D, a normal access opening that is accessible by a short swim underwater
(see 7.13.3 below).
NOTE A habitable boat is defined in 3.1.9. A habitable part of a boat is defined in 3.1.10.
7.13.2 Habitable multihull boats of design categories A and B, when the boat is floating in the inverted position in
calm water at mLDC, the highest edge of the means of escape opening shall be at least 0,2 m above the sea surface.
NOTE 1 Part of the escape opening may be underwater when the boat is inverted.
NOTE 2 In these categories, the probability of some crew being below deck is considered to be significant.

7.13.3 Habitable multihull boats of design categories C and D, when the boat is floating in the inverted position in
calm water at mLDC, the highest edge of the means of escape opening shall be less than 0,4 m below the sea surface.
When a normal access opening is intended to be used as a means of escape, the shortest length of a rope
taken from the water level inside the habitable spaces through the means of escape, around guard-rails or
guard-lines (if fitted) to the sea surface shall not be more than 5,0 m.
NOTE In these categories, the probability of some crew being below deck is considered to be limited.
7.13.4 Compliance with the requirements of 7.13.2 and 7.13.3 shall be demonstrated by either practical test or
by calculation, excluding the buoyancy afforded by any air trapped inside the hulls apart from that in:
— dedicated flotation elements (see 3.6.6), or
— watertight compartments not containing habitable parts of the boat.
NOTE See Annex D.
7.13.5 Exit through such means of escape shall be possible in the inverted position from all habitable parts of
the boat by means of permanently fixed foothold, ladder, step or other means. The size of such means of escape
shall comply with ISO 9094. When the boat is inverted, the vertical distance between the upper foothold and the
exit shall comply with ISO 9094.
7.13.6 Means of escape other than as permitted by 7.13.1 d) shall be fitted in the transom, inboard topsides of
sidehulls or bridgedeck, and shall also be openable from outside, but are not required to be closable.
7.13.7 As far as practicable, means of escape shall be fitted in positions where local wave impact loads
are minimized.
7.13.8 The lowest part of the opening of an escape hatch, window or panel shall be not less than 0,2 m (design
category A or B) or 0,1 m (design category C or D) above the fully loaded waterline when the boat is upright.
7.13.9 Means of escape shall have a strength equivalent to the minimum requirements for the adjacent intact structure.
donradcliffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 23:52   #35
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz
Boat: Boatless Again
Posts: 4,584
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

I couldn't download an owners manual for the Leopard 45, but the 46 manual shows the first reef at 15 knots. According to 7.11.2-c of the ISO12217-2 standard the L46 is a boat vulnerable to inversion and requiring an escape hatch. Can anyone owning or buying a L45 let us know what wind velocity they recommend for the first reef??
donradcliffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2017, 00:24   #36
Registered User
 
danielamartindm's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Boat: Leopard 39
Posts: 815
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bean Counter View Post
The use of escape hatches - see commentary from the skipper

https://www.sailfeed.com/2016/11/atl...-of-leopard-2/
"A loud roar" says tornado to me. It sounds like freight train accelerating toward you at incredible speed. This doesn't sound to me like any flaw of design; just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
danielamartindm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 03:54   #37
Registered User
 
MikeFergie's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Mozambique
Boat: Leopard 40 (2009) & Crownline 250CR
Posts: 230
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cottontop View Post
Amazing video, if it's real, but I think if your cat capsizes, there won't be a spark plug handy.


All you actually need is an aluminum marking punch which is hand held small device costing $10 at the local hardware store. All you have to do is press it against the glass and it goes “click” via a small spring mechanism inside and this shatters the entire pane of tempered glass.
Even a 5 year old can use this.

We used this in the fire services to enter locked cars. The side and back windows are tempered glass with the windscreen being laminated glass.
MikeFergie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 04:02   #38
Registered User
 
MikeFergie's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Mozambique
Boat: Leopard 40 (2009) & Crownline 250CR
Posts: 230
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Actually my understanding on the new Leopards is that they have shown the certification agencies that if ever inverted the leopard floats much higher in the water than older generation boats making the need for escape hatches unnecessary.

Meaning the crew can easily escape out of the hulls without the need of hatches.

It’s not a wind strength issue or risk of inverting issue
MikeFergie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 15:02   #39
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Boat: Hitchhiker, Catamaran, 40'
Posts: 481
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

The fact that Allenrbrts had his escape hatch fail last year on the same model boat (Tornadosailing identified this one as an owners version from the photo) and because of the description of the location and size of the breach re-enforces my opinion that the glazing popped out of the $2200. (retail price) escape hatch. If true (I am no forensics expert), I think it would put the blame (I am no lawyer neither), on the Goiot company. Not the designer of the boat, nor FP, nor the skipper. But if I had a boat with Goiot escape hatches, (or any escape hatches) I would be taking a serious look at them right now. A question for Allenrbrts: Did you contact Goiot about this and what did they say? Also, it is a very good idea to add "hull checks" to you watch routines. I do have a bilge pump alarm but is not loud enough if things are really rockin and rollin. Finally all of this talk about how water can travel through the hulls and even cross over to the next hull has me thinking of ways to do safety inspections and custom modifications based on these ideas. As far as safety hatches at the waterline are concerned in general I have seen a lot of them that don't look to good for the wear. There must be a better way such as an all composite hatch with a very small viewing port. These hatches are partially submerging when the boat is underway but a lot of them don't look any different than standard deck hatches. (besides the fact that the bottom half is badly corroded from seawater)
Thumbs Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 15:22   #40
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Boat: Hitchhiker, Catamaran, 40'
Posts: 481
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

I though that I was on the "44 Helia "sunk" thread, when I posted the previous.
Thumbs Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 15:38   #41
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: San Francisco
Boat: Fountaine Pajot, Helia 44 - Hull #16
Posts: 60
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumbs Up View Post
The fact that Allenrbrts had his escape hatch fail last year on the same model boat (Tornadosailing identified this one as an owners version from the photo) and because of the description of the location and size of the breach re-enforces my opinion that the glazing popped out of the $2200. (retail price) escape hatch. If true (I am no forensics expert), I think it would put the blame (I am no lawyer neither), on the Goiot company. Not the designer of the boat, nor FP, nor the skipper. But if I had a boat with Goiot escape hatches, (or any escape hatches) I would be taking a serious look at them right now. A question for Allenrbrts: Did you contact Goiot about this and what did they say?
Here is my interaction with them last year:

M Allen Roberts,
I follow a request for after sales about one 49.42 hatch of 2013.
We never had that kind of issue on this panel and I'm surprised that both of
panels failed approximately at the same time.
Did something happen on the panels ?

This panels is the previous version. Now handles and frame are different.
I proposing to send you a new acrylic and a glue kit for reparation free, to
change it.

Where is the boat ?

Regards

David LE DUIGOU
Quality department
GOĎOT SYSTEMS


My reply:
David:

Thank you for the follow up.

My boat had two hatches. One developed a small leak between the glass and the frame. It also leaked at the handles. I purchased a new Goiot hatch and installed it in October 2017. The other hatch seemed fine and was not leaking so I didn't make any changes to it. In November 2017, we sailed from Norfolk Virginia to Antigua (2 week trip), 11 days in the second hatch unexpected failed. It seemed to happen without any notice, it didn't start with a small leak, we suddenly had water spraying into the boat between the frame and the acrylic. Given the forces involved, it would seem easy to have the entire acrylic fall out (only the handles left were holding the acrylic in the frame).

We made an emergency repair of the hatch to stop the leak and finished the sail to Antigua. Once in Antigua, we hauled the boat (second time in a month for a Goiot hatch problem) and replaced the hatch with a new Goiot hatch. I'm going to retro-fit both hatches with an aluminum bar that has blocks glued to the acrylic to prevent this from occurring again.

I'm not sure what the exact failure mechanism is. When I removed the glass from frame, I found the silicone was pretty well adhered to the aluminum but was very easily peeled from the acrylic. Perhaps the silicone degrades over time? I also noticed that coefficient of expansion between the acrylic and the aluminum are different, so temperature cycles could stress the joint and lead to failure. There was no mechanical stress of the acrylic from inside the boat pushing the panel out, the hatch that failed in the Atlantic is protected from anything inside the hull pushing the acrylic outwards. Perhaps the design the Fountain Pajot hull might lead to a negative forces (suction) pulling the acrylic from the frame. The hatch is recessed in the hull, so maybe that is possible.

What I do know is that frame is attached to the hull with 20 bolts, but the acrylic is only held in the frame with silicone glue and that glue does not bond well to acrylic. I don't understand why you haven't heard about failures, everybody seems to know these hatches are prone to leaks. What I didn't understand is the hatch can completely fail with potentially disastrous results.

For me, I have spent $6000 to replace the two hatches because of silicone failing to adhere to the acrylic panel. I don't need replacements, they are now new hatches. I would certainly love to be reimbursed for the replacements because of a design flaw in the hatch.

What I think Goiot should realize is the hatch has a serious design flaw and that boats are at risk. The fix is pretty easy, with about $20 of parts and some solvent glue the acrylic is unable to pull out of the frame. You should consider making this available to your customers so that somebody else doesn't have the same problem and have their boat at risk. My feeling is if acrylic had completely come out, we would have sunk with in an hour or two unless we could have somehow patched over the very large hole that is recessed in the hull.



I got no reply to my email. The email was also copied to the Fountaine Pajot dealer on the East Coast.

Allen
AllenRbrts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2018, 20:04   #42
Registered User
 
Buzzman's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New South Wales, Australia
Boat: Still building
Posts: 649
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Another option to the 'escape hatch issue' could be to provide a 'breakout panel' (as described in the regs) and a semi-hidden compartment on the underside of the wing deck containing the 'appropriate tools' (as outlined in the CE regs posted higher up) that would enable those outside the boat to get back in, which an 'escape hatch' effectively prevents unless someone is trapped inside and can open the 'escape hatch'.

This would of course mean that a similar set would need to be kept inside the boat adjacent the 'breakout panel' in the hull.

I suggest a good quality Japanese push-pull saw ought to suffice, but feel free to include a hand-operated drill and an auger bit as well.

In such a scenario, the 'breakout panel' would need to be marked on both inside and outside of hull. It would need to be located in a position where there were no cupboards etc behind it.

The 'break glass to exit' approach assumes the vessel is non-recoverable because, once a large hole is made in the hull(s) flipping back over will just see it sink, surely?

At least a cut-out panel can be fixed/glued/glassed back in if the boat is to be righted. Also, as seen in the upturned large cat video, the 'escape hatch' was frequently under water, so if it was a 'break glass to exit' panel, the boat could then potentially fill with water and sink even lower, if not completely.

Given that a boat tends to flip usually in high wind, high seas, or at night, or all three, it makes sense to have an 'accessible compartment' that can be reached on the underside ofthe bridgedeck that could contain water, snack bars, thermal/foil emergency blankets, rope and/or clips to 'clip' the crew onto the boat.

It would also make sense to have permanent handrails and/or clipping rails underneath the bridge deck.

I suggest the above *ought* to be mandatory, with or without an 'escape hatch'.

It might even make sense to keep an EPIRB in the external compartment.

Of course, you run the risk of thieves getting to know this and stealing stuff, so it's not a perfect solution.

Perhaps a lockable catch that can be unlocked as part of the 'up anchor/leave port/unmoor' regime..??

There's no one easy answer that suits all requirements, but hopefully the more ideas are shared the better off all can become.
Buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2018, 22:13   #43
Registered User
 
fxykty's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Auckland
Boat: Outremer 55L
Posts: 605
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Escape hatches (or access hatches as another poster suggested) are required to be openable from outside. Our hatches have mini handles on the outside and can be opened from either side. A smaller locking dog is situated on the inside in between the two handles to lock the hatch when not sailing - there’s a note on the hatch reminding us to open the lock when sailing.

A basic use case for getting back inside is to get food, water, grab bag and whatever else from inside that would be useful. As well as to get in out of the weather.

Regarding the accessible compartment, sounds like a life raft. Extra gear is most safely and weatherproof stored inside the boat in one or more grab bags, near one of the escape hatches or cut out panels or whatever.
fxykty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2018, 23:52   #44
Registered User
 
Buzzman's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: New South Wales, Australia
Boat: Still building
Posts: 649
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

Ah, OK, was not aware they were required to be openable from outside. Seems counter-intuitive unless lockable, and then you need to be sure to 'unlock' or 'unlatch' as part of unmooring regime.

My feeling is that a lockable underwing compartment would have the same danger of forgetting to unlock as an 'escape hatch' with a lock or latch.

Can't see any way round it either.

Am thinking the under bridgedeck compartment could have a positive on - positive off lock that went right through to deck level. Might make it easier to remember to lock/unlock it.

Guess it depends whether you want a glass window in the side of your boat or not. Personally, it freaks me out! lol

The Goiot hatch issue merely serves to confirm my fears.

For my money, in order to have the hatch in a position where it would be useful once inverted, it's got to be below (or right on) the waterline when sailing upright.

So I'd prefer it to be 'solid' - either a watertight door or just hull with a dotted line drawn on it - cut here....

You takes your chances....
Buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-09-2018, 02:10   #45
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 269
Re: Escape Hatch Failure

I'll never have an escape hatch (sinking window) on my cat. Fuse the main and you really don't need to worry about it. Still worried about it? Install an airbag at the masthead.
__________________

Chotu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
hatch

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bahia 46: Bahia 46 escape hatch Alphabob Fountaine Pajot 12 23-10-2015 13:26
Ever Heard of Catamaran losing its escape hatch in a seaway? AquatiCat Multihull Sailboats 48 05-04-2013 15:45
Rebedding Goiot Escape Hatch Windows Jon Hacking Construction, Maintenance & Refit 11 03-02-2013 14:16
410: Escape hatch seals threadkiller Lagoon Catamarans 0 06-05-2012 21:56



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 21:10.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.