UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki missing in mid-Atlantic

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by poiu

I'd like to get any keel bolts parts out that remain for analysis by the MAIB and I'd like to get a sample of the fibreglass hull as a minimum. I think someone with a pneumatic cutter could get those key samples safely enough given reasonable weather.

I think most of us would like to know, but (1) I suspect the hull has already sunk (what, after all, kept it afloat but trapped air? an unstable ship and an unstable ocean); (2) Given the general policy of sinking damaged boats, I'd have thought the ship that brought the diver would have sunk it unless they thought it would soon go down; I agree with Muckle Flugga and some others who have pointed out the dangers to someone going there to try for samples; and so, I really think we aren't going to get to know.

It might be [B]extremely interesting[B] to read what the MAIB would make of the enhanced photos, but do not know if they have this intention.

Finally, Beneteau will have records relative to the hull construction. The charter company will have records of service to the CR. I'm not sure why they'd share, though?

Some other questions have been raised elsewhere (thanks, SA, and Estar) relative to how well suited the crews pfds were to the job they were expected to do? Would dry suits have been better? [could they have got in them? Motion can be pretty extreme in 50 kn.]

What appropriate relatively easy maintenance can be done for boats with their type of construction to ensure more keels don't fall off?

Is the gluebonding of hull liner to hull too prone to failure from groundings to make a boat made that way unsafe as an ocean crossing vessel?

It was also suggested that the maritime community might re-examine its ideas of how likely is rescue in a catastrophic failure situation. I think this is a very good idea!

Ann

[Ozbullwinkle]

The photo posted above of the keelboats in the bilge don't seem to match the pattern of the keelboat holes in the upturned hull. There is a section of the photo of the upturned hull where I would expect to see holes where there are none at all.

I also believe that the size of these keelboats look grossly inadequate and I would have expected them to be at least double the diameter of those shown.

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

I would love to see the vessel recovered. However, strictly speaking, as this is no longer an SAR, but rather a recovery and investigation, then the whole responsibility lies with the UK government, and its Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB). It is well possible that the vessels which were in the area lacked the onboard resources to hoist such a large and complex (and until the water drained out of it, very very heavy) object on board.

It likely is still out there... a hazard to shipping. Sadly, whatever remains there are are very likely still within.

As to getting a diver into the hull... it is not so easy. There would be a mass of wire, lines, and possibly broken spars and tangled sail still attached to the hull. Moreover there may be toxic chemicals such leaking battery acid (which would be quickly buffered by the ocean, but maybe dangerous locally), bleach, paint thinner, diesel, and a host of other possible. This is not to mention any human remains, which may be a biohazard in themselves. Apart from which there will be cans, knives, floorboards and all manner of other such inside the rolling hull, sloshing back and forth... it would be an extremely hazardous environment and regardless of whether they had SCUBA equipment aboard, if I was the US skipper I would NOT allow a diver to enter that mess. The only justification could have been in order to save life. If none remained to be saved, I would not endanger another in such circumstances. The surface swimmer already was in significant hazard for all the above reasons, as they attempted to gain knowledge of the position of the liferaft etc. I have every respect for the USCG mariners in this situation, and really, so should we all.

Yes I totally understand an upturned hull would be make for a difficult dive. I would not expect a forensic type of investigation or even a thorough search inside the boat in mid ocean by a diver. But, perhaps some video or still camera pictures taken from a camera poked though some of the hatches from the outside might tell a little more than just that the life raft was still with the boat. We might know what else still remained with the boat like the main EPIRB. It just seems like it would be a basic thing to do with so many unknowns as to what happened with the crew. Maybe this has been done. I would hope so and we will find out more in a UK report at some point in the future.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

I think most of us would like to know, but (1) I suspect the hull has already sunk (what, after all, kept it afloat but trapped air? an unstable ship and an unstable ocean); (2) Given the general policy of sinking damaged boats, I'd have thought the ship that brought the diver would have sunk it unless they thought it would soon go down; I agree with Muckle Flugga and some others who have pointed out the dangers to someone going there to try for samples; and so, I really think we aren't going to get to know.

It might be [B]extremely interesting[B] to read what the MAIB would make of the enhanced photos, but do not know if they have this intention.

Finally, Beneteau will have records relative to the hull construction. The charter company will have records of service to the CR. I'm not sure why they'd share, though?

Some other questions have been raised elsewhere (thanks, SA, and Estar) relative to how well suited the crews pfds were to the job they were expected to do? Would dry suits have been better? [could they have got in them? Motion can be pretty extreme in 50 kn.]

What appropriate relatively easy maintenance can be done for boats with their type of construction to ensure more keels don't fall off?

Is the gluebonding of hull liner to hull too prone to failure from groundings to make a boat made that way unsafe as an ocean crossing vessel?

It was also suggested that the maritime community might re-examine its ideas of how likely is rescue in a catastrophic failure situation. I think this is a very good idea!

Ann

I guess the hull is cored above the waterline, no keel and probably float forever until reach a shore .

MAIB allready post in their website , we are investigating the isue,...no idea what kind of investigation ...

Beneteau?? we know how Builders deal with this isues in the past, ohh well that boat maybe sustain damage from a grounding, and could be true ,,,, but who know?

50 knts its close to hurricane force winds , sustained 50 knts i mean.
Extreme motion= hell yeah .. pretty tough... not the ideal conditions for this kind of boat.

Regarding the structures and keels designs, there is only one way to avoid this in the future, Fiberglass+Resin and a good deal of nice enginering, lets call it overkill structure in this particular structural point, will be nice if the big pile of dogshit aka grid liners are baned or partial redesigned and more real beef is used for hull reinforcements . I say it before, the Aviation industry is seriously regulated , why not the boat industry where lives are at risk everytime the ocean turn mad? at least in important points like keels, rudders, and a minimun in hull scantlings...

Plexus its used to glue the liner to the iner hull , its a rigid stuff , a serious grounding and the whole thing fail, its not real fiberglass, dont flext to much , so just figurate...

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

I think most of us would like to know, but (1) I suspect the hull has already sunk (what, after all, kept it afloat but trapped air? an unstable ship and an unstable ocean); (2) Given the general policy of sinking damaged boats, I'd have thought the ship that brought the diver would have sunk it unless they thought it would soon go down; I agree with Muckle Flugga and some others who have pointed out the dangers to someone going there to try for samples; and so, I really think we aren't going to get to know.

It might be [B]extremely interesting[B] to read what the MAIB would make of the enhanced photos, but do not know if they have this intention.

Finally, Beneteau will have records relative to the hull construction. The charter company will have records of service to the CR. I'm not sure why they'd share, though?

Some other questions have been raised elsewhere (thanks, SA, and Estar) relative to how well suited the crews pfds were to the job they were expected to do? Would dry suits have been better? [could they have got in them? Motion can be pretty extreme in 50 kn.]

What appropriate relatively easy maintenance can be done for boats with their type of construction to ensure more keels don't fall off?

Is the gluebonding of hull liner to hull too prone to failure from groundings to make a boat made that way unsafe as an ocean crossing vessel?

It was also suggested that the maritime community might re-examine its ideas of how likely is rescue in a catastrophic failure situation. I think this is a very good idea!

Ann

I also think the decision to divert and head to the Azores at the first sign of trouble help seal their fate. Putting them 750 miles further away from the Coast Guard rescue planes when things really broke bad for them.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

I think most of us would like to know, but (1) I suspect the hull has already sunk (what, after all, kept it afloat but trapped air?

Ann

Ann,

Many (most modern?) monohulls will float without a keel. CR had open holes in the hull where the keel used to be. So not much air could be inside.

All,

Did anyone see the posted photo of the liner where the keel bolts come through? The backing plates were shockingly small in the photo I saw. They were barely wider than the nuts and washers. A bolted on keel should have a correctly sized backing plate that is uniformly bedded to the structure. Thats how the stress gets transferred to the underbody and ultimately to the chain plates. Does anyone know exactly the hardware stack up on this type boat?

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by pbiJim

Cavaliar,
many of those materials are off-shore spec's that don't have AISI equivalents. I see that you are in Houston. Are you able to source those materials here in the States? If so, can you list a supplier?

Thanks,
Jim

Jim,

Most of the materials have AISI equivalents. Note that SAE standards are now being used instead of AISI (since '95), but ASTM standards generally get quoted in addition to the grade to specify the sub-grade.

There are a couple of minor differences between North Sea and GOM materials use, but I've found that it is simply because each region hasn't had the need to try out each others' material preferences, and many of the differences come from geo-logistical issues. Some of the better oiled bronzes come from Sweden, whereas some of the better Super-Duplexes come from the US.

I'll dig them out over the coming week and reply to this thread with a conversion list (along with some suppliers).

Phil

[pbiJim]

Originally Posted by Cavalier

I'll dig them out over the coming week and reply to this thread with a conversion list (along with some suppliers).

Phil

That would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Jim

[JPA Cate]

Transmitterdan:

So you think it is afloat? You don't think the weight of the engine, toilet, furniture, stove, etc., etc. would have sunk it in a seaway?

I won't say it couldn't be; I just think it probably is sunk. YMMV.

A.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Transmitterdan:

So you think it is afloat? You don't think the weight of the engine, toilet, furniture, stove, etc., etc. would have sunk it in a seaway?

I won't say it couldn't be; I just think it probably is sunk. YMMV.

A.

Hi Ann,

The CR could certainly continue to float indefinitely. There would be a lot of foam, wood, etc, and the larger areas of the hull were likely cored, so, positively buoyant. A rather similar designed yacht in which 6 were killed in nearly identical (broadly speaking) circumstances, the Moquini, survived awash and afloat just at the surface, just like CR, for six months in some of the world's most violent waters:

Moquini crew had little chance

It is my opinion that it is likely CR is still at the surface and represents a hazard to shipping.

[JPA Cate]

Hi, again, guys,

Maybe I'm wrong about this, then. Thanks.

Indeed, if it is still "afloat", better she was sunk, or recovered and examined. Certainly not the kind of thing one wants to run into at night, and probably a little hard to see in the daytime.

Do you think she still has the mast, sails, running rigging on? they would help stabilize it.

Ann

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

I would love to see the vessel recovered. However, strictly speaking, as this is no longer an SAR, but rather a recovery and investigation, then the whole responsibility lies with the UK government, and its Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB). It is well possible that the vessels which were in the area lacked the onboard resources to hoist such a large and complex (and until the water drained out of it, very very heavy) object on board.

It likely is still out there... a hazard to shipping. Sadly, whatever remains there are are very likely still within.

As to getting a diver into the hull... it is not so easy. There would be a mass of wire, lines, and possibly broken spars and tangled sail still attached to the hull. Moreover there may be toxic chemicals such leaking battery acid (which would be quickly buffered by the ocean, but maybe dangerous locally), bleach, paint thinner, diesel, and a host of other possible. This is not to mention any human remains, which may be a biohazard in themselves. Apart from which there will be cans, knives, floorboards and all manner of other such inside the rolling hull, sloshing back and forth... it would be an extremely hazardous environment and regardless of whether they had SCUBA equipment aboard, if I was the US skipper I would NOT allow a diver to enter that mess. The only justification could have been in order to save life. If none remained to be saved, I would not endanger another in such circumstances. The surface swimmer already was in significant hazard for all the above reasons, as they attempted to gain knowledge of the position of the liferaft etc. I have every respect for the USCG mariners in this situation, and really, so should we all.

An experienced diver would not have any problems in reasonable weather.

Its not as if its a zero visability, currents, depth situation that divers regularly work in.

Cheers

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by downunder

An experienced diver would not have any problems in reasonable weather.

Its not as if its a zero visability, currents, depth situation that divers regularly work in.

Cheers

The boat is in a highly dynamic situation with roll and surge at the surface, with lines, likely broken and sheared spars and steel cable, and a host of other hard, sharp and heavy objects and entanglements, not to mention chemical and biohazards.

I am an experienced diver.

This is not some deeper, stabilised wreck. You are simply wrong. It would be possible, sure. Dangerous? Definitely. The question is why would you endanger a diver in this situation, knowing that there is no life left to save.

I am curious to know how many fresh wrecks in a highly dynamic situation like this you have personally penetrated?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Hi, again, guys,

Maybe I'm wrong about this, then. Thanks.

Indeed, if it is still "afloat", better she was sunk, or recovered and examined. Certainly not the kind of thing one wants to run into at night, and probably a little hard to see in the daytime.

Do you think she still has the mast, sails, running rigging on? they would help stabilize it.

Ann

Hi Ann,

Yes, Agree. I would think it really would be nearly impossible to see in the daytime, except in glass flat conditions. As to rigging and spars? I would consider it unlikely that the spars will stay on for long, but fragments may still be attached. Likely a fair amount of the running and standing rigging is trailing down from her still.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

The boat is in a highly dynamic situation with roll and surge at the surface, with lines, likely broken and sheared spars and steel cable, and a host of other hard, sharp and heavy objects and entanglements, not to mention chemical and biohazards.

I am an experienced diver.

This is not some deeper, stabilised wreck. You are simply wrong. It would be possible, sure. Dangerous? Definitely. The question is why would you endanger a diver in this situation, knowing that there is no life left to save.

I am curious to know how many fresh wrecks in a highly dynamic situation like this you have personally penetrated?

I did indicate reasonable weather and I think your suggestion of chemical and bio hazards is a bit over the top.

Can we be sure a body is not trapped in the hull without inspection? One of the photos of the damaged hull showed reasonable dynamic water conditions to me. Then again neither of us are out there.

Obviously you would not do such a penetration alone without a backup diver but if the vessel is still floating it is doable.

No point here in debating dive experience other than to say I also have had experience in a range of water conditions. Would I do it if I was there. Yes.

Cheers