Loss of KELAERIN Rescue of Crew June 2018

[hzcruiser]

Originally Posted by gmakhs

A experienced crew with plenty of sailing , but what I see from the explanation is a poor prepared boat .
Lockers where open, the fridge was open , the scuba bottles where everywhere , manual big bilge pump without filter was missing , lack of knowledge ( they could use the engines cooling system to remove water as well ) .
[...]

Wow, did you actually read her account? Doesn't sound like it at all...

Originally Posted by skipmac

I would think an AIS transponder would be good for this application.

Well, AIS has the same range as VHF and they couldn't hail anyone with their calls, so no, it wouldn't have helped.


The one and only thing that was reliable enough and saved their lifes was the EPIRB.


Other than that, I feel very sorry for them and wish them all the best to get on their feet again, whether it's on dry land or back sailing. Maybe they could even locate their boat again? It's only been two weeks.


Count me in for the cyber hug!

[daletournier]

The Ais will be seen alot further out by aircraft. I recently contacted a search and rescue plane via vhf that was 70-80nm away. I saw them on my Ais and was interested if they knew the position of a boat that I knew was further behind me.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I’m surprised as to the amount of damage. I see the design weight at about 25,000 pounds. We are 44’ and 40,000 pounds half load.

Their boat was either a Kelly Peterson 46 or a Formosa 46.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Their boat was either a Kelly Peterson 46 or a Formosa 46.

Once you get rolled, the weight of the boat doesn't play any role in the amount of damage you will incur. What matters is the extent to which everything inside is bolted down, strapped down, and screwed down so that it stays put when the boat is inverted.

I've never seen a cruising boat that would survive a roll without extensive damage. My boat certainly wouldn't. I've got my batteries very well secured, the calorifier, all the tanks, most of my sole plates are screwed down, I think we're better prepared than most, but I would be kidding myself if I thought there wouldn't be mass carnage in case of a roll. I've never seen locker doors which are really designed to hold heavy stuff inside in a roll, just to name one vulnerability.

I think it's probably not even worthwhile preparing a boat to that extent -- it's too hard, too expensive, and too inconvenient. I think if you can keep the main things in place (especially batteries and tanks) and just be ready for mass chaos in case of a roll -- that's probably the most rational approach.

I've seen boats which have been through a roll, and photos of such boats. Kelaerin looks about average to me. Many boats lose their rigs and get holed in the process. You do NOT want to get rolled.

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by daletournier

I think it's more skippers haven't tried to heave to. I agree not all boats can.

All my previous boats were stable hove-to. Have used it many times in varying conditions. Even in a Force 11 and 35´+ waves it was reasonable comfortable, and obviously safe.

No way to get my new boat to lie hove to. But, she is a fin keeled light weight spade rudder design, and I have always believed in sailing these actively in heavy conditions. Fast enough to give the rudder bite at all times. Also keeping windage low, especially aft is of importance.

The most important lesson to me from this is to look over the securing of all items on board. I have been very remiss in this, gotten complacent over time.

[estarzinger]

1. when running in storm conditions it is subtle and tricky to decide when you need to take further action. Often things feel perfectly fine (apparent wind is lower, waves are not hitting you too hard, boat feels pretty stable) . . . until suddenly it gets hits by a truck - usually gets a bit sideways on a wave and then hit by a big breaker and then flung down on its side, and then worse case hit by a second while it's on its side.

An important part offshore seamanship is the feel and knowledge of while running when you need to take another tactic. There are any of several options, and which exactly is then best to take depends on your equipment available and the boat design and what direction you want to go. But usually, any of them are better than just continuing to run, in a situation when you are going a bit fast and the boat is feeling a bit squirmy, and you might possibly get sideways.

With this boat, in this case, my guess (based on the very limited info we have) is a drogue would have been the next right answer - even if they had had to cobble one up.

but the bottom line first cause (I believe) was waiting too long to take the next step in one of the more subtle seamanship decisions.

BTW, I think it is not so well known, but very often the most damage is not on the wave strike side but rather on the side which gets flung down and hits the water surface. No matter what, stuff on deck is vulnerable to being stripped off by green water and by knockdowns.

Fateigue may well have been a factor in not making that decision promptly . . . . which I will bring back up later below

2. Companionway needed to be closed/sealed. Even if you don't get knocked down, you can still take a huge amount of water down an open or unsealed companionway. I personally like doors much better than hatch boards. Dorrs are fasters and easier to get thru and get re-closed, and more likely to be fully closed in this sort of situation. But in any case, basic seamanship says you need to close that huge hole uptight.

My sense from the write up is that the massive discourgement of seeing their home flooded and their secure nest breached was really overwhelming.

#3 yes, things need to be stowed with an eye to what will happen in a knockdown. There are a lot of tricks to doing this in ways which still allow you to live in and use the interior - there are (for instance) perfectly good ways to secure heavy fridge hatches which will hold them in a knockdown while still allowing fast and easy access.

It is just my sense from the write-up, but I think all the water in the boat, and the bilge pumps not working well was really the most discouraging aspect and not the mess of the other stuff thrown around. So, the aspects to focus on here perhaps are (a) heavy stuff which could hurt someone if flung at them, critical heavy systems components (like batteries and tanks), and stuff which will clog the pumps.

#4 The abandon ship decision seems to have been pressed on them by the USCG rescue swimmer. My understanding from the write up is that neither person was thinking of abandoning when they made their call. And my guess is that this vessel could have been sailed home. That's a hard decision when the rescue swimmer tells you this is your one chance to get off, and you are really tired and discouraged.

#5, Age is a very delicate topic, but (again from only the very limited info we have) it feels like this couple was ready to finish and was at their limit. The way the story is written I wonder (and only that I am not making any pronouncement or judgement) if they went just a little bit too long and would have been better served hanging up their boots just a little earlier (which yes, would have been difficult with the end of the loop just so close).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

1. when running in storm conditions it is subtle and tricky to decide when you need to take further action. Often things feel perfectly fine (apparent wind is lower, waves are not hitting you too hard, boat feels pretty stable) . . . until suddenly it gets hits by a truck - usually gets a bit sideways on a wave and then hit by a big breaker and then flung down on its side, and then worse case hit by a second while it's on its side.. . .

That's an excellent description of what happened to us in the North Sea a few years ago. It was a really useful learning experience.

It's easy to go through a couple of blows and think you're the master of the universe, and it's important to realize that absolutely no one is this, in the ocean.

[model 10]

The reason the coast guard swimmer said now or never was the helicopter was going to run out of gas.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Ecos

The reason the coast guard swimmer said now or never was the helicopter was going to run out of gas.

Once it get to the point of putting a swimmer in the water and him risking his life to get to you, the decision has already been made.

I believe they were asked prior to all of that do you want a pump and they said no? They made the decision prior to the swimmer hitting the water.
I too believe the boat could have been saved, but maybe not with it’s crew, they were too beaten up, maybe old and tired.
Thank God we have never been rolled, but I am absolutely certain that if we ever are, all my Wife will want is off of the boat, and she may not be alone.
We got into this with the as long as it’s fun theory and that doesn’t sound like fun

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Rick Williams

Wait, what? Ground the pilot?

He should get an award. That's the kind of flying they're trained to do and two people were saved because they're that good at what they do.

He had one minute left because he was willing to stretch his safety margin to the limit to save a couple human beings.

That's amazing! That's courage! That's not reckless if that's his job.

Credit owed where credit is due.

Assuming he really ran it to the tanks were dry, then yes he should be grounded. Why, because that was reckless and could have resulted in the death of at at least 6 people and the loss of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers assets. There are only so many USCG helicopters, lose one and your short one, they don’t get to go to the store and say I’d like another please. It’s not courageous or heroic, it’s reckless and there is no place for that in a Professional organization.

However I don’t for a minute think he ran it until fuel exhaustion was impenitent, I think he shut it down with 21 min of fuel remaining, and diverted to do so.
That is exactly what he was supposed to do, and you get a talking to at worst, but likely a smile when your being talked to, no grounding, no end of career, no do not pass go or collect $200.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Once it get to the point of putting a swimmer in the water and him risking his life to get to you, the decision has already been made.

Direct from the write up . . . .

"They informed me that when they arrived they would have only a few minutes with us and we needed to make the decision: they could give us a dewatering pump and we would be on our own or they could extract us from the vessel. I looked at Jim and asked, “which?” and he answered, “the dewatering pump”. Still at this point, I did not envision us leaving Kelaerin. The pilot radioed back that we had to think about that and have our possessions we wanted to take with us ready to go. . . . . . but eventually I saw them coming. They informed me that they would drop a swimmer in . . . . The helicopter dropped low, on the starboard side, and the swimmer jumped in but I could not see any of this, only the blades as they whipped around near me. I was not aware when he came aboard. I kept looking for him not realizing he had already boarded and was discussing the situation with Jim at the stern. I was waiting for the pump and then looked over to see the Coast Guard swimmer coming towards the cockpit and informing me that we were getting off the boat. “No,” I said. “We are staying on the boat, we just need the pump.” Then Jim was behind him and said, “Joy, we are getting off.” I was incredulous. It was beyond comprehension that we would ever leave the boat. I still felt that, although, we were in serious trouble here, that we could save Kelaerin. How could we possibly leave her, after nearly 70,000 miles of cruising and 27 years together with only 150 miles to go? Jim had always said he wouldn’t abandon the boat unless he had to step up into a liferaft."

It is possible the crew's recollection of events is not totally accurate . . . . but it sounds like the USCG decided to rescue while the crew was still set on a pump and toughing it out.

Something I do not know . . . the USCG (or other rescue services) policy if you call for help, get say a pump but refuse to abandon . . . . but then say 5 hours later call again and say things have gotten worse and now need to abandon . . . I presume they might be a tad put out (understandably as they risk life twice) but still definitely go out for the rescue?

[a64pilot]

Apparently the Jayhawk has much larger fuel capacity than the Army version as it can go 300 nm offshore, and stay on station for 45min and return with a fuel reserve.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_MH-60_Jayhawk

Apparently in the whole world there are 42.
The loss of one would be very significant I believe

But was it a 60 or was it a Dauphin?

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Apparently the Jayhawk has much larger fuel capacity than the Army version as it can go 300 nm offshore, and stay on station for 45min and return with a fuel reserve.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_MH-60_Jayhawk

Apparently in the whole world there are 42.
The loss of one would be very significant I believe

But was it a 60 or was it a Dauphin?

It was an MH-60 Jayhawk according to USCG website write up.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Something I do not know . . . the USCG (or other rescue services) policy if you call for help, get say a pump but refuse to abandon . . . . but then say 5 hours later call again and say things have gotten worse and now need to abandon . . . I presume they might be a tad put out (understandably as they risk life twice) but still definitely go out for the rescue?

They may come get you, or may not depending on risk is my belief.
I am absolutely sure they have a risk matrix they fill out before each flight where weather, crew experience, crew rest, and a bunch of other things are each weighed, then depending on the final score, that depends on who can “brief” or approve the flight, the riskier, the higher up the food chain the briefer has to be. The pilot and crew really does not figure into the decision on whether to launch or not. That is the way the Army does it and I assume the same in the CG.

However the USCG can declare your voyage to be manifestly unsafe and require you to abandon your vessel, which I’m awfully sure is what was fixing to happen here, and likely the Husband knew it.
If I were in his shoes and the decision was to risk my wife’s life to save the boat, well the boat loses. I think he made the right call.
However I do not know how they could actually force a civilian to leave.

I know it’s armchair quarterbacking, but from the video, it didn’t look that bad, was the storm worsening, or lessening?

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

It was an MH-60 Jayhawk according to USCG website write up.

OK, so the Jayhawk has long legs, real long ones.