500: Lagoon 500 Nearly Sunk

[Efraim]

AFAIC the real issue is that the stern drive dislocated, regarless if it caused by a dingy painter or not.

[daddle]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

...and using a proper painter that floats.

You'd rely on a floating painter to keep itself out of the prop?

[Factor]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

So... multihulls CAN sink???

Yes this model of this brand built by this company. But go right ahead and inappropriately extrapolate one incident to all. Those that understand the principles of logic will see the flaw in your statement and those that don't" , well it probably doesn't matter.

[Erik C]

Originally Posted by Sparohok

Well let's be clear. Thread title says "sunk," first post says "almost sunk," later post says "both hulls flooded." You'd need a lot more information to conclude whether or not this boat was actually in any danger of sinking per se.

Martin

If you read the reports it wasn't sunk completly because they managed to beach themselves thanks to the local area knowledge of the Thai crew.

[meyermm]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

So... multihulls CAN sink???

I have been told numeros times this cannot happen and I believe everything I am told

[Palarran]

The issue of a water-tight bulkhead that leaks is a problem for me. I have this EXACT same issue on my Fountaine Pajot. They ran all the electrical, plumbing, and refrigeration/air conditioning lines through the bulkhead in large pvc pipes. Those pipes are approximately 18" above the water line so if the boat was flooded that far, it'd be all over. We are finalizing some wiring changes right now and when it's done I'll seal the ends of the pvc with something. Even a rag would prevent enough water coming through so that the bilge pumps in the main cabin could keep up. But water tight? Not hardly!

Another instance of this for those who remember is the FP cat that had a whale surface under it's saildrive and holed the engine compartment. That led to flooding the other engine compartment. This is the one where the freighter ramed the boat. While in that case I still can't figure out how the water got high enough to transfer from one side of the boat to the other, regardless, the boat was lost.

IMO it is kind of BS that the thread states the boat sunk though.

[Southern Star]

Daddle, when anchoring or using reverse on my current boat I always keep my inflatable on the davits. However, I still use a painter that floats based upon my past experience on boats without davits - and yes, even in reverse, I have never had my props foul a floating painter. I suppose it could happen in a power boat with outdrives tilted up part way, or with props close to the surface, or if accelerating quickly in reverse, but I have never had the floating line submerge so as to make contact with my propellers.

Factor, in spite of faulty construction, this catamaran DID NOT sink. However, I get your point. I also note that multihullers were not posting similar sasrcastic or derisive comments in a number of recent threads concerning monohulls that DID, in fact sink. Best to just let it go.

Brad

[meyermm]

Page one of the multihull operating manual states in large letters "Cats will not sink" on the last page, it states the definition of sinking is that the top of the mast must be at least one metre below the surface. This is regardless of any other situation including the fact that you now have a pet shark for company. I hope this resolves the issue.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Palarran

The issue of a water-tight bulkhead that leaks is a problem for me. I have this EXACT same issue on my Fountaine Pajot. They ran all the electrical, plumbing, and refrigeration/air conditioning lines through the bulkhead in large pvc pipes. Those pipes are approximately 18" above the water line so if the boat was flooded that far, it'd be all over. We are finalizing some wiring changes right now and when it's done I'll seal the ends of the pvc with something. Even a rag would prevent enough water coming through so that the bilge pumps in the main cabin could keep up. But water tight? Not hardly!

Another instance of this for those who remember is the FP cat that had a whale surface under it's saildrive and holed the engine compartment. That led to flooding the other engine compartment. This is the one where the freighter ramed the boat. While in that case I still can't figure out how the water got high enough to transfer from one side of the boat to the other, regardless, the boat was lost.

IMO it is kind of BS that the thread states the boat sunk though.

So how come you guys don't just pump some non absorbent expanding foam into the pipes... a lot easier and cheaper than a rewire... and just as effective..
Or is that solution to 'MONO'

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

The real issue is that NO ONE should use a dinghy painter that doesn't float. Full stop.

That's a cup of coffee I won't be getting back

Cheers

[craig boorman]

I do not think Lagoon will cover the loss, Not after some stories I've heard but I sure hope the boat insurance will cover the loss, Can't imagine losing a million bucks because of a mistake.

[schoonerdog]

CE certification means watertight bulkheads? From what I remember reading, CE certification meant that there were specs for an "offshore" rated boat such as hatches capable of handling a wave, I don't remember anything regarding bulkheads. No monohull has waterproof bulkheads separating different sections of the boat to ensure structural bouyancy sufficient enough to allow the loss of any one compartment. In fact, the only regulation I'm aware of, the "Safe Return to Port" applies to large passenger carriers (I think above 100 meters), and was only put into effect for new designs within the past couple years. And yes, any boat constructed without structural bouyancy sufficient to allow the loss of any one compartment will sink if a large compartment is compromised. Some catamarans have this with large water tight compartments forward and aft, privilege, the prout 45.... but certainly not all of them. I don't think even "most" of them have it. I've got a picture of a lagoon 440 coming up with scuba divers on the bow to prove the point.

[s/v Moondancer]

When we were seeking a boat 'saildrive' was one of the thing on our list of things not to have.

Stupid idea to cut that big of a hole in the bottom of a boat!

[tsmwebb]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So how come you guys don't just pump some non absorbent expanding foam into the pipes... a lot easier and cheaper than a rewire... and just as effective..
Or is that solution to 'MONO'

That's what I did... It's a mixed blessing. It's a PIA when you want to run something but it does provide a decent vapor/water/sound barrier.

I use a floating dingy painter and I think it is a good idea -- it's also nice if you're towing the dink while snorkeling. I'm not sure a floating painter is certain protection from fouling and it doesn't protect you from other junk. I had a net wrap around one of our saildrives half way between Honolulu and San Fran and had to go swimming to cut it loose. If it had also grabbed the rudder I suppose it might have torqued the sail drive or rudder post... In my case the engine stalled instantly which I suppose is another good reason to have modestly sized axillary engines. With a proper saildrive prop I think the hub is supposed to separate before you get forces sufficient to tear the drive out of the hull too... But maybe not... This is not only a saildrive problem though. I've seen incidents where traditional prop struts have ripped the bottoms out of boats resulting in catastrophic flooding.

Is there a link to the details of this accident?

Tom

[tsmwebb]

Originally Posted by schoonerdog

CE certification means watertight bulkheads? From what I remember reading, CE certification meant that there were specs for an "offshore" rated boat such as hatches capable of handling a wave, I don't remember anything regarding bulkheads. No monohull has waterproof bulkheads separating different sections of the boat to ensure structural bouyancy sufficient enough to allow the loss of any one compartment. In fact, the only regulation I'm aware of, the "Safe Return to Port" applies to large passenger carriers (I think above 100 meters), and was only put into effect for new designs within the past couple years. And yes, any boat constructed without structural bouyancy sufficient to allow the loss of any one compartment will sink if a large compartment is compromised. Some catamarans have this with large water tight compartments forward and aft, privilege, the prout 45.... but certainly not all of them. I don't think even "most" of them have it. I've got a picture of a lagoon 440 coming up with scuba divers on the bow to prove the point.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Many small monohulls have a collision bulkhead and/or a sacrificial bow. On larger vessels with multiple compartments there are typically watertight bulkheads with fittings between them. In some matterial conditions the compartments will be isolated and many ships are designed so that they can have a flood in one compartment without sinking (and ususally with a plan for maintaining sufficient stability etc) so long as the fittings are properly secured. This is not new. Most monohull ships have waterproof bulkheads. Some monohull yachts and race boats (eg. VOR 60/70, IMOC, Mini 6.5, etc) do to. So what do you mean "no monohull has wterproof bulkheads...?" Also, a yacht may be designed to float with it's compartment(s) flooded if it is built from sufficiently buoyant materials (eg Elan yachts). This is the case for many, though certainly not all multihulls.

Tom