Another Lovely Old Girl Founders

[boatman61]

+A1....

Originally Posted by ryon

Have any of you set the sails on a squarerig? Tacked a squarerig? Worked one to weather? I'd be glad to go thru the process, if anyone is interested. I can name a very famous ship that that won't tack at all, unless under power.

We should all know that squarerigs are not very good at going to weather, and especially not from a dead halt. They were designed for long runs before the wind. Raising any of those squaresails would have taken crew time from other more essential tasks, destabilized the ship, and probably carried them onto the rocks much quicker.

That left the fore-and-aft sails to get them accelerated and out of trouble. That is what Astrid tried to do, but unfortunately it didn't work.

Thanks, Pyrate for clarifying the situation that Astrid was in. We can debate how she found hereself on a lee shore without power, though as soon as the facts come in we won't need to debate even that. Once in this situation, Astrid's outcome was pretty much determined. They tried what they could. They were successful in getting everyone off the ship safely, and that's all they could do.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

1. There was a way to sail out of the situation, and I have suggested one (note to Nigel - with a force 5-6, she certainly has sufficient breeze to sail back in against an ebb)

Some one mentioned she was about 400m off the cliffs when power was lost.
To me, with the onshore wind, ebb tide, and most likely the need to wear about rather than tack, that maneuver could well have resulted in her on the cliffs well before she did.
Off course, in hind sight, the skipper is most likely regretting that he did not make more sea room (as Evans pointed out) before turning to stbd and making for Kinsale.

[s/v Beth]

Evan, I think has a different agenda than to find fault with the skipper, as do a few of us. What can we learn from this foundering that we can use in our own boats? I am not worried about the captain- his lawyers will make sure he is treated fairly. I am not even worried about what might have been, although I am still curious to know if a different outcome could have occurred if he was motor sailing.
For me is is consideration of the Lee shore. Under such conditions, how far should you be from it to be safe? We have a lot of lee shore here in the PNW, and we often motor sail a tack that we could not maintain without some engine power/ or tidal current. Is that a bad practice?
And lets say you are tacking up a deep rocky canyon, at what point do you come about on the leeward shore? When the cliffs go directly into the water, I often tack only 5 boatlenghts or so from shore. I figure if I get locked in irons, I can start the iron genny and be out of there in less than a minute or so. Bad practice, or just getting the most from your tack?
BTW, I always have a boatspeed of over 3 knots going into a tack, more if there is a stiff wind and swells, and I always check to see if there is enough room to convert to a gybe and inter that into the equation. I hate getting caught in irons.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by NSboatman

So here's a brief account from a very knowledgeable source who was there:

They were coming out of Oysterhaven in 20 knots of southerly wind, it faces south and is only a few 100 metres wide. There is a story of water being put into the diesel tanks by a previous trainee crew who were ‘difficult’. We were all at a bar-b-que the night before and when I asked after the captain I was told that he was aboard ‘assessing the damage of the previous crew’! I believe they thought that they had cleared the water but maybe the lumpy sea stirred things up.



They did try to push the bow around with a rib, but it was not powerful enough at 90hp.

So there it is... experienced crew and management, tight spot, frantic efforts with a service boat to save the vessel; and suggestions of possible sabotage. Nasty situation all around, and a very sad loss.

Best possible thing for us rubberneckers to do is applaud the actions of the rescue services and those involved for facilitating a casualty free evac.

*If it's true* that sabotage was part of this scenario, I hope those responsible have to spend a little time studying steel bars from the inside out.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by The Garbone

Waiting it out for favorable wind and tide was probably the rule in years gone by before motors, these days, not so much. Sounds like there was nothing for it in this case, sad.

That was my first thought, but then ... it's the coast of Ireland. Are those conditions really all that unusual? Did they have any reason to expect engine failure at the worst possible moment? Probably not.

I bet sailboats go in and out of that entrance all the time under those conditions. And it was a training mission -- it may well have looked like a great "teachable moment," but when the stuff hit the fan, the crew may not have had enough experience to pull the rabbit out of the hat.

I'm not ready to second-guess this incident yet, esp. if it turns out that the fuel had been sabotaged.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

This looks to me like a case of a skipper who was primarily a motor boat captain rather than a sailor/square rig captain.

They were out of the tight confines of the harbor, and had room to sail, if they had a sail ready and crew able to handle it.

We all make mistakes, and the trick is to learn from them. I think the lesson here is to have a sail to deploy if (when!) the engine fails.

Attachment 64640

Attachment 64641

hell, ships without motors used to get right into Kinsale. Its one of the reasons it was an important harbor. There is usually (we wintered there) a decent wind on the beam, and just enough room to maneuver.

They were students. I am assuming that they were not expert sailors.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by s/v Beth

Evan, I think has a different agenda than to find fault with the skipper, as do a few of us. What can we learn from this foundering that we can use in our own boats?.

Thanks Newt. It's nice that someone understood. It's not about fault, it's about doing better.

This seems to be a discussion after almost every incident. Some people apparently can only ever see 'fault finding' and don't seem to understand 'doing better' or 'learning lessons'.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Thanks Newt. It's nice that someone understood. It's not about fault, it's about doing better.

This seems to be a discussion after almost every incident. Some people apparently can only ever see 'fault finding' and don't seem to understand 'doing better' or 'learning lessons'.

Truly, I don't think you're looking at the threads completely honestly. Go back and read and you will read judgmental comments that so far aren't based in fact but that reflect badly on -- in at least one instance I can think of -- the captain. The post assumed a skilled crew in addition, but these were students.

Sure there's something to learn here -- things go wrong and you can't always fix them, and it's 100 times as bad when your lee shore is big pieces of rock.

I don't think anyone sees *only* fault-finding, but for myself I have short tether for fault-finding based on incomplete facts, or worse, assumptions. I don't think that teaches anyone anything, sorry.

[boatman61]

Bit of a joke when folk who have not a clue how to run/sail a square rigger suddenly become experts...

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Bit of a joke when folk who have not a clue how to run/sail a square rigger suddenly become experts...

Who would that be?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Who would that be?

I give in... I'll play your guessing game...
Who would that be...

By the way... cute pic on your blog... was expecting something else...

[SecondBase]

(take with salt pending board of inquiry findings)

What went well: Cheers to Captain and rescue crews. Good emergency response. I think we can all agree this guy did a significantly better job as an emergency manager than Schettino. Once he understood lives were at risk, he did not hesitate. All hands saved.

What didn't go well: Lives were at risk the entire time yet he didn't understand that fundamental fact. A few dozens souls, including trainees, were placed at risk on a Single Point of Failure (SPOF). If you are running a trainee boat, let's agree you cannot depend on sail handling. Ok so don't. I would argue that on a training boat, in this situation, you need redundant engines to the formula N+1 with N standing for Need. Prior poster's tugboat observation counts towards N+1. If you go to sea with less that's a decision in itself.

If there was even a rumor of sabotage pre-departure, the notes had better be in the logbook and the captain's own fingerprints had better be on the fuel filters of that vessel and if they aren't I don't think much of him.

[charliehows]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Thanks Newt. It's nice that someone understood. It's not about fault, it's about doing better.

This seems to be a discussion after almost every incident. Some people apparently can only ever see 'fault finding' and don't seem to understand 'doing better' or 'learning lessons'.

Wont disagree on that – I've had my engine drop out on me often enough to always have a plan b not to mention an allergy to motoring into lee shore situations if I can avoid it. Trouble is, as the engine gets more reliable, so does the tendency to get a bit...comfortable, and slip into bad habits. My guess would be that its pretty rare for a sq. rigger like the 'astrid' to run on anything but engine alone inshore – I had a run on the 'R.Tucker Thompsen' in NZ last year, the guys on that really enjoy sailing it and the conditions around Russell are pretty good for a big boat, but they made no attempt whatsoever to do anything other than engine control at inshore stuff – I think those guys could sail off if they hit trouble because they are a crack crew and they love working that boat – but the conditions in the Irish sea are a bit more challenging, especially with a crew of kids...

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by charliehows

Wont disagree on that – I've had my engine drop out on me often enough to always have a plan b not to mention an allergy to motoring into lee shore situations if I can avoid it. Trouble is, as the engine gets more reliable, so does the tendency to get a bit...comfortable, and slip into bad habits. My guess would be that its pretty rare for a sq. rigger like the 'astrid' to run on anything but engine alone inshore – I had a run on the 'R.Tucker Thompsen' in NZ last year, the guys on that really enjoy sailing it and the conditions around Russell are pretty good for a big boat, but they made no attempt whatsoever to do anything other than engine control at inshore stuff – I think those guys could sail off if they hit trouble because they are a crack crew and they love working that boat – but the conditions in the Irish sea are a bit more challenging, especially with a crew of kids...

I'm no instructor and I certainly don't sail a sqare-rigger!

But when I see even a sign of trouble, first thing I do is start the engine. I leave her in neutral but I'll put her in forward sooner rather than later, because there's always a worst way to learn about a lee shore. If that engine isn't going to run, or isn't going to run well, I need to know sooner rather than later. I went sailing about a year ago on the large boat of someone very experienced. He had let a very inexperienced person take the helm and didn't realize until it was very nearly too late how close we were to shallow water. So he turned the engine on -- and fortunately it started, and he got the boat out of there.

Two weeks later his boat engine ran its last.

I suspect that human nature often is at play -- when you're in familiar waters you may tend to under-estimate the risks. In other words, I think the captain may have been used to those waters and didn't fully appreciate the risks he was so familiar with. I keep thinking about the four football players in the Gulf of Mexico, three of who drowned. They made multiple mistakes, including going out into rough seas in a boat that had no business going offshore.

One of the wives said they were "experienced." I suspect that they were "experienced" at making the same mistakes over and over (no. 1 clearly being they hadn't checked the weather report; the incoming weather had been a topic of discussion for three days at my sailing club before this incident). What they were experienced at was being lucky.

But if you don't know you've been lucky, you don't learn anything. :/

I've also had instructors who thought if they called out instructions the *students* would automatically follow them well. Sometimes you need the bigger picture to really "get" the instructions you're being given. Those of you who have been sailing since you were six may not have even experienced that, because your parents were well aware of what you did and didn't know. But I have seen skippers call out instructions to crew who didn't completely understand what they were being told to do. I've made that mistake as skipper myself.

It might have been urgent, the directions he was giving, making any misunderstanding quite serious. "Failure to communicate," as they say. The people I know who race seriously go out and practice to make sure everyone is on the same page, using the same vocabulary, etc.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

They were students. I am assuming that they were not expert sailors.

From what little we know, and the very short video, the crew work looked pretty good.

The mistakes were a series of judgments by the captain. (1) to go (without an organized support vessel) - a real decision if the "water in the fuel" comment is true, (2) to not take a course that got further offshore, (3) after the incident, to try to sail an obviously impossible course rather than trying a turn.