GUNBOAT Dismasting

[Sand crab]

I would guess that the Dyneema has a zillion tiny air bubbles that get in between the fibers that help it to float also. At least for a while.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by neilpride

I dont know if i could do it again since he lost a 2.5 million boat in the ocean, kind of a black spot in a Skipper cv... just wonder...

I mean if He can do it again, lol..

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by neilpride

I mean if He can do it again, lol..

I certainly wouldn't be hiring a skipper that was so close to the boat manufacturer that he or she blurred the lines between sensible decision making and being an active promoter/salesman for the company.

Perhaps someone was more interested in proving to the world how tough the boat was in line with the boats sales pitches then being conservative and prudent when making decisions of when to set sail.

For me a good skipper will ere on the side of safety than say lets shoot out now because this beast will outrun anything nature can throw at us.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

In 2 words.
Mast pumping, lack of checkstays lowers.
Cats are exposed to greater rig loads than a monohull.

Regarding pumping that's the same regarding momohulls and multihulls and has not to do directly with rig loads, regarding lack of checkstays I agree but that has nothing to do with being a multihull or monohull but with the way the mast is rigged.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Rookie mistake, and also Dyna is tough to cut, i dont want to sound lik a ass, ...

Oh well, we don't always get what we want.

The reason for motoring was already explained. The remains of the rig were pounding against the hull.

[Palarran]

As far as the mast pounding against the hull, if it fell to port, causing the window to blow out, it would have been pounding on the port hull. Do you see ANY damage to the port hull? Besides the window, I don't see any damage to the boat period.


How come 5 adult males can't clear the deck of the boat? How much would that mast weigh?

[44'cruisingcat]

I guess everything looks easy sitting behind a computer. I'd imagine the entire rig, mast, boom, sails and furlers (they're all attached to each other) would be the best part of 500kg.


Throw in a wet, pitching, rolling deck, shards of carbon, broken glass, hydraulic oil...


Easy.

[JPA Cate]

^^^^^^

And throw in the cold, so people's hands are numb. We cleared our rig once, in relatively benign conditions, 20-25 kn, well developed seas, but none of it could float.

If you chop up a bunch of dyneema, willy-nilly, you'll be leaving strong, floating snakes to snag people's props. You'd really want to get it back aboard, and lots of luck under those conditions, even if it were daylight!

Ann

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by Palarran

As far as the mast pounding against the hull, if it fell to port, causing the window to blow out, it would have been pounding on the port hull. Do you see ANY damage to the port hull? Besides the window, I don't see any damage to the boat period.

Actually, the skipper said a portion of the rig was "close to" hitting the hull...

Originally Posted by Palarran

How come 5 adult males can't clear the deck of the boat? How much would that mast weigh?

As others have said, especially with the weight of the jib and a main of that size in the water, the loads could have been massive. I have no trouble at all, imagining that they would be physically unable to move it. I would also guess that it might have been just the 3 pros aboard who were doing the work, that the skipper had told the owner and his son in no uncertain terms to stay put in the salon, and that "this is our job"...

Frankly, I'm amazed they were able to dispatch that rig in 15 minutes, that seems to me a remarkable feat... And, by the sound of it, what the skipper described as "driving the boat out from under the rig" actually sounds like a pretty clever solution... According to him, the port prop was not fouled during that maneuver, he specifically mentions taking the engine out of gear, and then shutting it down after the rig was finally overboard. Seems that the sheets of the jib are what eventually fouled the props, after the engine was shut down... Who knows, but I'll take him at his word...

The fact they managed all that, in those conditions, without injuring anyone, or losing someone over the side, seems pretty damn impressive, to me... Lifelines and stanchions completely gone on the port side, not even so much as a toerail on that deck, nor a handrail on that salon roof, that I can see... The possibility of hydraulic fluid everywhere, that had to be an extraordinarily hazardous operation... Hell, perhaps the closest I have ever come to falling off a large boat, was after slipping on an undetected hydraulic leak on deck, at night... And that was in absolutely flat calm water, 300 feet above sea level, on the freakin' ERIE CANAL, of all places... :-)

Fair enough to second-guess some of the aspects of the loss of this yacht, but I don't think their actions in getting rid of that rig, in those conditions, is one of them...

[poiu]

The thing I don't get is why they pressed the beam-me-up-Scotty button when the mast fell down. No hull breach, no serious injury, no life threatening emergency. I think I wouldn't have done it. At that time they hadn't yet snagged the prop even.

A jury rig or engines or even a tow might have got them home. I know worse weather was coming, but if the engines had worked (and they were working then) they would have been in port within a day. This boat as a motor yacht should have coped fine. Even if the props were to snag, it might have got fixed. They might have got the wet suit on and cut themselves free, anyway they didn't know that then.

It looks to me like the USCG were asked to risk their lives inappropriately. Should the guideline of stepping up into the life raft apply to the time to abandon ship in this case?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding pumping that's the same regarding momohulls and multihulls and has not to do directly with rig loads, regarding lack of checkstays I agree but that has nothing to do with being a multihull or monohull but with the way the mast is rigged.

I dont know if you ask a question or you want a answer? Rm rig dont have checkstays lowers not even running backs , then mast pumping is a isue, is simple to understand , sure monohulls can have the same problem but is a diferent scenario, the way multi rigs are rigged are complety diferent to monohulls, the diamonds , spreader set keep the mast in colum, prebend, rake etc... and the uppers work like a backstay but at the same time work like regular mono uppers, but without spreaders putting those 2 wires under great loads, roller furlers negate the mast to fall backwards ,,,,


I dont see any damage in the port hull, but anyway ok, i prefer to peel away layers of carbón with the rest of rig than loose my 2 yanmars or just 1, in any case thats fine , they foul the prop , anyone can imagine that in a multi a full dismasting mean you need like gold your 2 diesels or just 1 , 99% of the multi dismastings we fix it never they recover nothing,,, not even a dam winch... thats why i believe in many new multis the rigs need to be strong enough to low the % of troubles,,, Privileges and Marechal maybe are the best rigs out there in production multis, reliables and well designed ... just saying.

[donradcliffe]

The loss of a boat is often a series of cascading errors and omissions. I can count at least seven which contributed to the loss of the GB55.
THE BOAT
Rig design-- There are evidently ways to keep the mast on a cat from pumping out of column forward. I think I saw a lower aft shroud from the spreaders on the St Francis 50. The trade-offs are more chafing and limits on how far the main goes out, but it’s preferable to losing the rig.

Glass picture windows—and no way to keep the sea out when they break. The rumor is that GB originally used polycarbonate, but discarded it because it wasn’t easy to keep clear.

Electronic engine controls-- in a salt water environment

Engine access from hatches opening to the outside-- making it far more likely that engines can’t be fixed at sea .

THE CREW
Whoever was on watch was asleep or playing with the computer. There is no way that an alert seaman would not have seen the squall well before it hit them. If there was enough water in the air that ‘they couldn’t see the front of the boat’ it would have shown up as an angry glowing patch on the radar from miles away. It was also daylight.

The captain violated rule #1 on putting the engines in gear with lines over the side, and paid for it. There were other options for st abilizing the mast situation, as it was in pieces. Like the newbies on the Caribbean 1500 said the morning after the cut away their mainsail, “it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it wasn’t”.

The skipper of Rainmaker has said he wouldn’t hesitate to leave NC again on a GB with a similar forecast. The skipper of the Bounty said “we chase hurricanes”, but HE isn’t around to repeat his mistakes.

[Jon Eisberg]

Final installment of the interview with the skipper is up on SA... Good write-up, overall:

Loss of the Rainmaker, Final Report | Sailing Anarchy

I'll give the skipper the benefit of the doubt, and presume he meant to say "drogue", instead of "drone"...

:-)

[Cavalier MK2]

I notice the captain put the boards down for the helo rescue. This would have increased the chance of capsize in the coming storm as there was now the potential for tripping. If that happened everything in the boat would start washing out. The search turning up debris would make me consider this possibility if I was trying to locate the boat.

So what color was the bottom paint? Much harder to spot than the topsides probably. The drift rate would also be slower. I'd suggest taking the last epirb location as a starting point for plotting revised drift estimates and look for a inverted target as an alternative search idea.

[44'cruisingcat]

With no rig, the boat is extremely unlikely to have capsized.