UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki missing in mid-Atlantic

[ka4wja]

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

Liferafts
4.20.1 Liferaft Construction and Packed Equipment

a) A sufficient number of liferafts shall be provided so that in the
event of any one liferaft being lost or rendered unserviceable,
sufficient aggregate capacity remains for all persons on board
b) Liferafts shall comply with SOLAS LSA code 1997 Chapter IV or
later version except that they are acceptable with a capacity of 4
persons and may be packed in a valise. A SOLAS liferaft shall

contain at least a SOLAS "A" pack.

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...

Originally Posted by tonywatson58

Maybe clutching at straws but there is some talk of a 2nd liferaft? Would such a boat really carry two? I am told that a MCA category 0 coded yacht should have two....

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

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by CarlF

I'm still trying to understand the picture. It appears to show three broken bolts (two forward and one aft) and a center 18"x6" (?) section of laminate pulled entirely out such that we are looking at water in the middle of the keel mount?

And an outer layer of laminate from the starboard hull was also peeled off?

Do we know how many bolts are in a 40.7? Are they just a single line down the middle?

If three bolts broke (or had previously broken), the remaining attachment would have been under incredible stress.

During progressive collapse of the bolts, at some point the force on the remaining bolts would have also become too great for the fiberglass. Looking at the photo it looks as though the central bolts partially ripped out of the hull consequently taking a large section of hull with it - effectively pealing off the laminate that remained attached to the bolts as the hull rolled.

Speculation again, but I would contend that this was the result of prior damage to the vessel. A major forward impact would cause enough distortion of the caulking to permit inflow/seepage over time to corrode the bolts without it being evident in the bilge. The stresses from large seas and moments would have opened up the volume between the hull and keel to the point that movement was possible. The only thing that could have slowed it would have been to drop all sail, motor to maintain steerage, bail and call for assistance.

The poor guys would have been fighting a losing battle.








Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk

[SaltyMonkey]

Also look back at the pics on the BBC. I see twin rudders. One of the rudders was ripped off. The other remained. I think this is more than just "previous damage".

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

Also look back at the pics on the BBC. I see twin rudders. One of the rudders was ripped off. The other remained. I think this is more than just "previous damage".

Single rudder.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by CarlF

I'm still trying to understand the picture. It appears to show three broken bolts (two forward and one aft) and a center 18"x6" (?) section of laminate pulled entirely out such that we are looking at water in the middle of the keel mount?

And an outer layer of laminate from the starboard hull was also peeled off?

Do we know how many bolts are in a 40.7? Are they just a single line down the middle?

If three bolts broke (or had previously broken), the remaining attachment would have been under incredible stress.

I suggest the fore and aft bolts fatigued under low stress due to crevice corrosion because not much evidence the fore and aft sections of the hull/keel joint was fused together properly.

Once the fore and aft bolts were gone all the keel loading was transferred to a small area of hull and this area got ripped off.
I would conjecture this accident resulted from an undetected construction fault that gave sea water access to stressed ss bolts in the absence of oxygen.
A haul-out may have shown tell-tail moisture in the keel/hull joint.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by Brob2

Single rudder.

That rudder does NOT look center

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

That rudder does NOT look center

Then it is no wonder they came to grief, Monkey... a single rudder (that is normal for the first series as reported by owners) offset like you have noted would likely cause the keel to fall off.

Or perhaps all those First owners haven't really looked at the bottoms of their boats...

Jim

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Then it is no wonder they came to grief, Monkey... a single rudder (that is normal for the first series as reported by owners) offset like you have noted would likely cause the keel to fall off.

Or perhaps all those First owners haven't really looked at the bottoms of their boats...

Jim

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what but you take a look at that bbc pick and tell me what you see. That neither looks center nor if u look at the floating stern image a single rudder. It looks like a port rudder part of a twin.

I'm dead serious.

My point is the starboard failed by some terrific force.

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

That rudder does NOT look center

If you're still wearing those glasses from your avatar no wonder it looks off center.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what but you take a look at that bbc pick and tell me what you see. That neither looks center nor if u look at the floating stern image a single rudder. It looks like a port rudder part of a twin.

I'm dead serious.

My point is the starboard failed by some terrific force.

Salty, yes I was being sarcastic. Reason? Because the boat has been identified as Rafiki, and it was a First 40.7, and those boats have a single rudder. Your interpretation of the picture seems to be in error.

Jim

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Salty, yes I was being sarcastic. Reason? Because the boat has been identified as Rafiki, and it was a First 40.7, and those boats have a single rudder. Your interpretation of the picture seems to be in error.

Jim

Concur.

[SaltyMonkey]

A better picture at the mail shows the rudder in full

US Coast Guard has found hull of Cheeki Rafiki yacht | Mail Online

Sadness hits hard.

[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.

[Brob2]

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.

That's neither the impression I gathered from this thread nor a fair comment to the fate of the crew. All yachts and skippers have their limitations and this particular group of men led by seasoned sailors believed the voyage to be an acceptable risk.

[downunder]

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 would expect that even some of the real CF bluewater vessels could circum and have in these seas. Prior damage was all supposition on a vessel that had been pushed hard over many miles. we just do not know. All is supposition other than the keel was lost. Some lessons in that.