UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki missing in mid-Atlantic

[tonywatson58]

Originally Posted by ka4wja

Tony,
The ISAF Cat 0 specs/regs do call for liferafts (plural)....




But, I'm not familiar with the MCA specs/regs....although, it seems clear that this Benateau (like almost all other non-purpose-built sailboats), did not meet the ISAF Cat 0 specs/regs...
ISAP Cat 0 specs/regs are petty stiff in some regards...and just a few off-the-top-of-my-head:
Insufficient number of watertight bulkheads...
No INMARSAT-C system...
No HF Maritime SSB Radio...
Only one EPIRB (at least two EPIRB's are required under ISAF Cat 0)...
Radar, and Radar reflectors (both passive and active "Radar Target Enhancer")...
Class A AIS transponder...
And, the list goes on and on....



John
s/v Annie Laurie

Many thanks John

[robert sailor]

Yes of course all of us feel confident in our boats when we leave port, that's natural. I'm also sure that this crew was a good one but no crew no matter how well seasoned can make up for a catastrophic structural failure in rough weather offshore. The Beneteau 50 a couple of weeks ago also had a catastrophic failure and were very lucky to have survived it. Yes there are many Beneteau's and the like sailing all over the oceans without major failures but very few of this type of boat sails in really rough waters and when they do the odds increase against them.

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Yes of course all of us feel confident in our boats when we leave port, that's natural. I'm also sure that this crew was a good one but no crew no matter how well seasoned can make up for a catastrophic structural failure in rough weather offshore. The Beneteau 50 a couple of weeks ago also had a catastrophic failure and were very lucky to have survived it. Yes there are many Beneteau's and the like sailing all over the oceans without major failures but very few of this type of boat sails in really rough waters and when they do the odds increase against them.

Yes, I quite agree.

[tonywatson58]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Why is it that when Beneteau's and the like suffer catastrophic failures we have the owners group all singing the same song of prior damage?? Wouldn't it be wiser to simply accept that the boat you own does have limitations and was not designed or built for anything other than coastal sailing and offshore trade wind sailing.

I have to agree Robert up to a point...CF had a tough life, being sailed hard continuously (not even sure how old she was?) and partial keel bolt fatigue (almost impossible to detect) is the most likely cause I feel...even if only one or two had failed this would have put increased stress on the others and even more so if the hull had a lot of water aboard? Idle speculation is, however, not enough...

A guy from Oceanagraphic Office in Southampton has just made some very good points on BBC morning news...the hull needs to be salvaged to a) find out what happened and b) to stop her being a danger to navigation and as a British boat with British crew it is now a British responsibility.

And the responsibility of the British MAIB to investigate fully ...as the USCG "do not carry out salvage operations" it looks as if it is now over to the Brits...?

[goboatingnow]

My condolences to the families, my thanks to all those involved in the search, especially the USCG.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Why is it that when Beneteau's and the like suffer catastrophic failures we have the owners group all singing the same song of prior damage?? Wouldn't it be wiser to simply accept that the boat you own does have limitations and was not designed or built for anything other than coastal sailing and offshore trade wind sailing.

This is not the appropriate thread for a post with an underlying message of fin v full smugness.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by ka4wja

Tony,
The ISAF Cat 0 specs/regs do call for liferafts (plural)....

But, I'm not familiar with the MCA specs/regs....although, it seems clear that this Benateau (like almost all other non-purpose-built sailboats), did not meet the ISAF Cat 0 specs/regs...
ISAP Cat 0 specs/regs are petty stiff in some regards...and just a few off-the-top-of-my-head:
Insufficient number of watertight bulkheads...
No INMARSAT-C system...
No HF Maritime SSB Radio...
Only one EPIRB (at least two EPIRB's are required under ISAF Cat 0)...
Radar, and Radar reflectors (both passive and active "Radar Target Enhancer")...
Class A AIS transponder...
And, the list goes on and on....

John
s/v Annie Laurie

It looks like they might have had to comply with MCA cat 0, or at least might have been planning to do. This code is mirrored closely by ISAF and most of the items you mention are required amongst many others, though the bulkhead requirement kicks in only at over 15m, so are not applicable for this boat. My understanding is a Red Flag vessel operating commercially has to comply with the appropriate MCA category code and MCA cat 0 applies if you sail more than 150nm from a safe haven.

The operators of the boat were advertising for crew willing to pay for places in the ARC race in 2014. The boat did take part in 2011, but that may well not have been commercially. However MCA rules though allow commercial boats to take part in a race where the boats follow the race organiser's rules instead. The ARC rules are to ISAF cat 1. All other races Cheeki Rafiki did were to cat 1. (Round Britain, Fastnet etc). I expect they probably were or were planning to use that exemption.

In any event, whilst they are important issues this is irrelevant because we can be sure if there was a second life raft then that fact would have been made well known by now its fact being of such great importance to our hopes for the crew and the efforts of the rescuers.

[robert sailor]

Hoppy, its nice to see that you have been appointed as one who decides what post is appropriate or not, quite a responsibility you have given yourself. Contrary to your ideas I have no desire to sail a full keel boat offshore even though I find some of them kinda cool. As you probably know yourself almost any boat can be taken offshore safely if the weather cooperates and when it doesn't there are better boats to be in than some of the mass produced built down to a price options out there.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Hoppy, its nice to see that you have been appointed as one who decides what post is appropriate or not, quite a responsibility you have given yourself. Contrary to your ideas I have no desire to sail a full keel boat offshore even though I find some of them kinda cool. As you probably know yourself almost any boat can be taken offshore safely if the weather cooperates and when it doesn't there are better boats to be in than some of the mass produced built down to a price options out there.

Yup... some of us do 'Get It'...
Voyaging is a 'Crap Shoot'.. and sooner or later the 'House' wins..

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Hoppy, its nice to see that you have been appointed as one who decides what post is appropriate or not, quite a responsibility you have given yourself. Contrary to your ideas I have no desire to sail a full keel boat offshore even though I find some of them kinda cool. As you probably know yourself almost any boat can be taken offshore safely if the weather cooperates and when it doesn't there are better boats to be in than some of the mass produced built down to a price options out there.

The fact is that if you make a serious mistake and end up where you shouldn't be , or more often, " **** happens" and your just unlucky, no boat however supposedly strong will save you.

Most boats can be brought through most weather , with a commensurate level of ability. Nothing can go through everything

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[robert sailor]

Dave your common sense approach seems to make sense but when the **** hits the fan there are some boats I would rather be in than others because quite simply they are better built and stronger in every regard.

[transmitterdan]

Prayers for the families and friends. They are going through something none of us would want our own families to experience.

The extra SAR effort was probably not necessary but it may help answer many questions. Hopefully we won't be quick to pounce on the next search suspended decision made by professionals. Many lives are at risk during SAR sorties. To all the nations that helped in the search we should be grateful.

Regarding boat type and construction there is not enough info to speculate as to the root cause. Obviously the boat experienced a catastrophic event. Speculating which boat could have survived is pointless. If the hull is salvaged then forensics might tell us something worth knowing. From a few grainy pictures and no physical examination no one can say what happened or why. But clearly this was not anything the crew would have expected and thus they could not have prepared for it. Probably the same is true for most anyone on CF.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Dave your common sense approach seems to make sense but when the **** hits the fan there are some boats I would rather be in than others because quite simply they are better built and stronger in every regard.

This is as much a fallacy as assuming safety devices can save you. The sea can break ANY small boat, and most Large ones. Simply putting your faith in construction is as bad as putting your faith in any technology.

A bad decision can sink any small boat.

We have to stop trying to see the problem as an " equipment " one. ( the boat is also , equipment )

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[robert sailor]

Well on this one we will have to agree to disagree. Rear bulkheads do not crumble in well found boats in moderate conditions and keels don't fall off well built offshore yachts. Crew smarts can not make up for marginally built boats in certain conditions. I understand your point and it is of course a good one but the last 2 examples we have seen of sinking production boats had everything to do with the boat and much less to do with the crew.
When they are making these racer cruisers they are optimized for performance. They have extremely narrow sections of the keel to hull area because the thinner that joint is the better the boat will go upwind due to the end plate effect of the foil but of course unless you are using some real high tech glass and fittings it will be a weak point and after a long period of use its failure rate can be much higher than a purpose built boat with a much wider keel and several more keel bolts to hold it in place. Having one fail in sheltered waters might not be a huge deal but in rough offshore conditions, well it is a huge deal. I'd rather blame the builder on these situations than the crew. Yes you can say they sailed too far north but a rugged built boat would have dealt with those conditions, it was after all certainly not the perfect storm.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Well on this one we will have to agree to disagree. Rear bulkheads do not crumble in well found boats in moderate conditions and keels don't fall off well built offshore yachts. Crew smarts can not make up for marginally built boats in certain conditions. I understand your point and it is of course a good one but the last 2 examples we have seen of sinking production boats had everything to do with the boat and much less to do with the crew.
When they are making these racer cruisers they are optimized for performance. They have extremely narrow sections of the keel to hull area because the thinner that joint is the better the boat will go upwind due to the end plate effect of the foil but of course unless you are using some real high tech glass and fittings it will be a weak point and after a long period of use its failure rate can be much higher than a purpose built boat with a much wider keel and several more keel bolts to hold it in place. Having one fail in sheltered waters might not be a huge deal but in rough offshore conditions, well it is a huge deal. I'd rather blame the builder on these situations than the crew. Yes you can say they sailed too far north but a rugged built boat would have dealt with those conditions, it was after all certainly not the perfect storm.

But... that is the whole point... both these 'Bene's' were production boats.. both were taken outside their comfort zone.. is that the builders/designers fault.. or the fault of those sailing it.
What happened to these guys was tragic.. but gear fails..
Everyone is talking Bene = Bad.. maybe you should add J-Boats to that list... I can think of a few where the same thing has happened to the keel.. crossing oceans is like crossing a M-way...
Don't try it in Rush Hour..