Large Cat Flipped off Niue

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by tsmwebb

I've given up on the unpredictable microbust as a contributing factor in this case.

We agree on that

Didn't Beth research this for a book that included a section on multihulls?

I have not asked. I do know her personal opinion is that she does not want to cruise on a multi, primarily because she does not like the motion. We have never discussed the capsize potential of the 'performance multis' . . . I thought because we both accepted the "can't if over 50' " theory, but perhaps she has always known better.

IMO, the answer to is a multihull that can flip in X amount of wind safe for cruising depends both on who's driving . . .

Sure but in my question I specified full sails and the sailor had screwed up. My question was how much wind do you think a "double handed blue water cruising" boat should be able to absorb without sailor help? That's a pretty simple direct question. Do you have a thought on what your answer would be? And do you know what the number is for various of the most common performance multi's - or for your A42?

The power is there but there is no requirement to use it all.

Yes, we understand and appreciate that. Hawk has a quite big rig. We find that we spend 30% of our time offshore in under 10kts apparent, and we can always reef down when in stronger winds. But if we make a mistake and don't reef, probably the worst that will happen will be we lay on our side for a while until we get things sorted.

I know and agree that the sailors could have and should have prevented this incident. But I know there are many things I could have and should have done better, and I continue to screw up. I have a partnership with my boat . . . I will look after it the best I can and it will look after me when I screw up. So, I am more interested in the design question - does this class have too low a 'squall safety factor' or does this one design have too low a ;squall safety factor' for a simple cruising sailor like me who is going to screw up at 2am once every two years or so.

[Dave852]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

So that leaves the question I was trying to answer . . . is this particular design not suitable or is the concept/class not suitable for short handed blue water? I have not heard any real facts yet to help me sort that out. The simple comparison vs the gunboat made the class look suspect, but that's too simplistic an analysis to take too seriously.

Does anyone know what the real displacement of this boat/design was? The website says 26,500lbs, which I thought is too light to be believable and builders/designers are notorious for posting way light displacements. But if that's actually true, perhaps this design is way too light, leading to too small righting moment for the sail area, making it the designer's fault.

Evans,
My cats displacement is 27558 lbs as per the owners handbook. Also quoted directly from the handbook is the following "Theoretically. your St.Francis, in light ship condition, would blow over in 43 knots of wind providing the main and genoa were fully sheeted and the wind a-beam. In practice, however, depending upon sea conditions, this could even happen at an earlier stage particularly when taking wave slope and centrifugal forces into account"
So my boat is far from foul proof. But my 12 year old son could stand watch by himself. And I can single-hand her. The boat is designed and then built and then you sail her based on what you have to work with. If my 12 year old is on watch there will be 3 reefs in the main before I turn in. If I am single-handing I am not flying the kite. If I have 6 strong sailors on board we could keep more sail up at night. I don't see the concept/class as not suitable but I will say they are less forgiving in some ways. But its not the builders or designers fault. A cat is not a mono and different rules apply. Having said that we keep forgetting how very alike they are. We all make prudent moves as conditions dictate to insure our safety at sea. Some conditions may be more of a threat to a cat and some will be more of a threat to a mono.
PS A heavy cat may be less likely to capsize but she would be in danger from other aspects such as not floating over the waves. Not to mention loosing all her speed.

[bayview]

There were reports of the Gunboats flying a hull up the channel on the way to the start of one of the Caribbean regattas. Reported as an awesome site on another forum.

Trade wind location with the wind in the 20 to 30 knot range from memory. Once a hull is up max stability is close to diminishing.

From the A57 website, from the specs given, I calculated a hull flying/ capsize strength of just over 20 for the full main and Genoa and mid 20's for full main and jib. Does anyone want to check my calcs I could be wrong. Pity the designers don't include these details and not just how many toilets are on board.

This is for flat water.

I have flown a hull on an inspiration 10.5 and that was in less than 30 which agreed with the calc figure for the design..

[YOGAO]

Just to start with the lighter side...

It is absolutely clear that the reason for the loss of this cat lies in the beginning of the account.

Personnel
Glen McConchie, 46, Kiwi.
Kelly Wright, 58, Yank.

OMG! A Kiwi and a Yank - they are lucky they got out of the harbor!

Evans,

I don't know the design specifics between a GB and a CW, but the GB does employ a much higher degree of lightweight materials that the CW designs do not. CF masts and the lightest high-tech materials for rigging, where the CW designs use aluminum masts and wire rigging. Therefore, I would think the GB might have a slightly lower COG.

In further reading the SY Anna blog, it is abundantly clear that the single biggest error was in continuing to head up to starboard while the wind was continuing to build and shift right. This was a guarantee to build the apparent wind speed and make everything happen faster AND more dangerous.

The rule of thumb that we use is: "down in the gusts, up in the lulls".

The second major fault was not releasing the main sheet before trying to reef the jib (Kelly realizes this after he is in the water). With a single reef, the main was still the real driver of boat speed. Reefing the jib would have been far easier had they headed down.

The account as written is dramatic to say the least. I find it amazing that Glen had the presence of mind to swim INTO a boat with a diminishing air pocket. I also find it informative that they couldn't get the escape hatches open.

Fair Winds,
Mike

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dave852

St.Francis, in light ship condition, would blow over in 43 knots of wind

Originally Posted by bayview

Gunboats flying a hull with the wind in the 20 to 30 knot range

From the A57 website, a hull flying/ capsize strength of just over 20 for the full main and Genoa and mid 20's for full main and jib.

flown a hull on an inspiration 10.5 and in less than 30

All very interesting. Thanks. Its a puzzle. I would have said all those numbers represented too low a 'safety factor' but I do fully understand the desire to have that potential performance.

One 'solution', which may be in a way what tsmwebb was trying to get at, would be to have a 'cut down delivery main' for all passages, or just a rule 'never full hoist on blue water', but somehow I can't see buying one of these boats and not wanting to use the potential, but then using the potential leaves you vulnerable to a screw-up.

[tsmwebb]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Just, FYI, the way you posted you message makes it s PIA to respond to. Please, break the quotes up with quote /quote rather than posting inside the quote because the multi quote feature doesn't work for me so I have to cut and paste. TIA

Your "simple and direct question" still seems to miss the point to me. At the design stage you can choose what wind speed you want the boat to be able to withstand with full sail. Operationally you can choose to always sail deeply reefed. I don't believe there is a universal answer to what is appropriate. In the same way that I can walk onto an auto lot and buy a car that has the power to go 200 mph I can buy a powered up multi. Both can be operated safely in most conditions by simply not using all of the installed power. You may buy a cruising multi that you expect to both take on voyages and daysail. Rather than buying two rigs for it it might be simple to always sail reefed offshore or when below. So, I don't understand what the point of your question is. Why full sail? Would you only buy a car that you could safely drive with the gas peddle on the firewall? Would you drive at high speed while distracted or in difficult conditions?

Also, I don't really know where you get the idea that cats of some particular size should not be capsizible in some particular wind with full sail as some kind of general rule. It doesn't make any sense to me either in terms of the physics or practicality. All sailing multis can can be capsized by the wind. The point where that happens with full sail is a design choice and not a size issue. Let me repeat, all conventionally rigged sailing multis can be capsized by the wind. You will have to reef them at some point or capsize. You may choose at what speed the first reef goes in at the design stage but you'll still need to reef at some point. The stability of the boat and to a large extent its seaworthiness are not a intrinsically function of when that first reef needs to go in.

Tom

[YOGAO]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

By the way, too many catamaran steering stations are located far away from the sheets. On my cat I could reach both the jib sheets and the mainsheet from the helm. Also, I'm not convinced we have quick enough release cleats. Jam cleats are definitely out as they do jam. Cam cleats are the best answer so far, but even they get hard to release under high load and you have to be pulling up, not sideways. I could see coming up with something like a panic lever that you can hit that will just let everything fly, assuming the lines don't tangle and jam.

Again, an oversimplification.

What is "most cats"? I would bet if you looked at just the numbers, "most cats" are built for the charter market (Lagoons, FPs, Leopards for Moorings and Voyage), virtually all of these cats have sheets, winches and line clutches led to the helm station.

Fair Winds,
Mike

maybe we need to get FactCheck.org involved

[Kettlewell]

Again, an oversimplification.

What is "most cats"?

But reread what I wrote. I didn't type "most cats." I typed "too many." I haven't counted, but I have seen large cats that have the steering stations well separated from the sheet handling operations, which might be great for a large crew but not so hot with a small crew. For that matter, lots of monos have the same problem. I just think the main point is that a lot of thought needs to be put into how to set things up so that it is possible to very quickly depower.

[Ozbullwinkle]

Originally Posted by Palarran

If you are a cat owner - do you really care about the posters baiting here for an arguement? The fact is that a large high performance cat did flip, didn't sink, and the crew where rescured. I'd be interested in whether the boat is salvaged.

As to the cause, you only have to read the travel log of the owner. Here is a part:

Besides being a unique boat in appearance, Anna is also quite a complex one. From the sailor’s point of view she offers a
lot of combinations with three fulltime sails and an asymmetrical spinnaker, but this also results in an enormous amount of
rigging. Here is a list of her running rigging (which you non-sailors may wish to skip):
7 winches, including two electric, one of which is mounted horizontally
24 cam cleats
13 fairlead blocks
2 barberhauler blocks
2 daggerboard blocks, each with an ingenious locking device
4 halyards, with the main being double purchase
2 topping lifts (one for each boom)
2 lines for the traveler
2 lines for the preventers for the main
2 spinnaker guys
2 spinnaker sheets
2 barberhauler lines
2 daggerboard looped lines
2 genoa sheets
1 mainsheet
1 genoa furling line
1 jib sheet
1 jib outhaul
1 jib furling line
1 downhaul for the mainsail

In the cockpit there are a couple of rails with a total of 14 half-inch-thick stainless steel hooks about 8 inches long and 4
inches deep to hang most of these lines on.

There are also 6 blocks and several lines for our dinghy davits, a long loop of line of about 140 ft. for use with the spinnaker
sock, and a couple of blocks and lines to put up the awning on the aft deck.

I think that it all but I am not sure.

The gear is all first class, of course, but the lines are not color-coded well, being mostly green or red, which adds to the
confusion. I personally am not experienced with a horizontally-mounted winch. and it was my mishandling of the tail of the
jib outhaul around it that caused our first problem, when we tore the sail. I later made a similar mistake and finally figured
out that I was holding the line at a bad angle when releasing line off that winch, and now make certain not to repeat that
again.

In retrospect we really should have undertaken an extra few days of training before we set off from Valdivia. The launching
of the boat had been delayed, though, so the sailing season was getting ever shorter as winter set in, and so we eagerly
grasped at the first opportunity to leave, due somewhat to the natural impatience of our skipper.

There where constant problems the captain and crew experienced on this voyage. The end result is that they had to much sail up in squally weather. The sail lines on this boat are an absolute jumble. The only thing, IMO, that could have saved the boat from capsize during this was to cut the cut the mainsheet. And you would have had to be right next to it.

What I've learned is that a high proformance boat demands high proformance crew. There wasn't any forgiveness with an error of judgement. Like most of you, I have a knife lashed to a pole next to my mainsheet clutch for just such an emergency.

Another thing I got out of Anna's journal is the design of their (and my) trampoline is/was wrong. I replaced mine with the super comfortable plastic mesh a couple months ago. At the time I wondered if I would need to get a blue water net as a replacement when doing passages and now I know.

I am so pleased that the skipper and his crewman were rescued so that they will be able to fully tell their story so that we can all learn from their experience.

However, there are a couple of observations that I have made that I feel is worth commenting on.

Firstly, the following sentence extracted from the skippers post to their yacht club which has the link on the first page of this post says the following about their pending departure from Auckland:-

"We will leave even if we can’t find the perfect weather window and take our chances as long as the storm is heading to Tonga we will just run with it."

With a crew of only 2, which is certainly undercrewed for a vessel that was as complex as this one was, is not an example of good seamanship from this skipper in my opinion. Sure, you can be caught in a storm when you are in transit of your passage but to intentionallly leave port when storms are forecast when you are undercrewed is not wise at all and as a result they unfortunately paid the price. It is also quoted above from the skippers own words that he had natural impatience which was evident when they first set of from Valdivia and this is further evidenced from his above quote when they set off from Auckland.

Secondly, when you view the list of equipment above that was on the vessel from the skippers travel log the complexity of this vessel is clear and it is way too much for a crew of 2 to handle in adverse stormy conditions or a potential emergency. This situation is magnified further by the fact that the lines are not color-coded well, being mostly green or red, which adds to the confusion. Whilst this was not the cause of this capsize it is certainly a good lesson to be learnt for everyone for all lines to be color coded to eliminate the potential of indecision in a situation which needs split second attention..

So in summary it seems to be that the following items stand out:-

1. They were undercrewed.
2. They should have waited longer to depart from Auckland - they were cruising so did not have a deadline that pushed them to depart as far as I am aware.
3. With only 2 on board and following a normal watch routine fatigue may have been a factor.
4. Anna was too complex for only 2 in stormy or a potential emergency situation. If you disagree, please re read the list of equipment and the skippers own comments about various items in the posted quote above.
5. With other squalls having been experienced only one reef in the main again with a crew of only 2 is not enough in my opinion if you cannot immediately dump the main if required.
6. I repeat, Thank God they both survived so we can all learn from this unfortunate accident as no doubt further detail will come out as time passes.

Just my thoughts,
Steve

[MarkJ]

Hi,

I want to broach a theme that I know some folks don't want to touch. But hey, I'm can cop the abuse.

It may be looking critically at the seamanship in this case.
The boat is high tech and some people here are looking for a design fault. I am looking at a high tech boat badly sailed, not badly designed. A high tech boat needs to be better sailed to be sailed safely than, say, a equivilant sized Lagoon.

I am looking at an incident a few days before the flipping:

On investigation it turns out a
quadrant (more properly, a radial drive) had slipped around one of the
rudders so that the rudder moved out of alignment, fighting the other rudder
and causing a lot of drag.

Anna - Kelly Wright 2010 travelogue 3 - Tonga

So they had some recent rudder problem.

If one then looks at the other problems this skipper has had over the last decade he mentions 3 of interest:

Was on a catamaran that lost its hydraulic steering.
Was on a catamaran that lost its cable steering.
Was on a catamaran on which a radial drive (quadrant) came loose from the rudder post.

Anna - Anna lost at sea -- Kelly OK
In other words he has had 4 significant rudder problems at different times and on , presumably different boats.

My question is: Could recurring rudder damage problems be a symptom of a skipper habitually over powering his cats? (Or monohuls for that matter)

Add to this question other facts: Ozbullwinkle reminded us the skipper said in his blogs: "We will leave even if we can’t find the perfect weather window and take our chances as long as the storm is heading to Tonga we will just run with it."

But may I add this extra line from the skipper: "We had chosen to leave at the first available weather window, on the tail of a low-pressure system, with tailwinds from the SW but the winds were quite fresh, in the high 20's, low 30's and the seas quite strong, several meters high"


cagney also reminds us: "The barometer had dropped only from 1000 mb to 998 mb over the last few hours, which was no cause for alarm"
Cagney: I'm almost speechless...


All in all, I am thinking that these people are driving a Ferrari but without the skills of Diego Marradona.


Oops! I mean a Michael Schummaker! Or whoever the hell drives Ferarris!

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.


Mark

[bayview]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

I think some here are getting somewhat 'liberal' with the facts in order to advance their own opinions concerning mulithulls- the boat did not capsize (nor was it close to capsizing) at 40 knots of wind or less. The last noted wind speed was 62 knots and it seemed to be increasing thereafter.

Further, some are also attempting to make sweeping generalizations about all mulithulls based upon what happened (or in the case of the deliberately understated wind conditions at the time of capsize -what didn't happen) to this particular multihull. I konw, good fun for cat bashers, but not very helpful.

Brad

Brad. The post containing the appraisal from the crew clearly stated that the instruments were set to apparent. The wind-shift put the boat on a close reach, probably lifting their boat speed into the high teens or even low twenties (not inconceivable on a performance boat like the A57 with only one reef in) hence if one was in 40 knots true, you are going to see figures around 60 on the apparent wind display.
It seems pretty important for a multihull owner to understands where the limit is, and it is no where near as high as some think. You may find most performance cruising multis fall into the 20 to 30 knot bracket these days, and reducing by the year .

Regards

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

All in all, I am thinking that these people are driving a Ferrari but without the skills of Diego Marradona.

I try not to judge sailors from a distance. It's too easy to Monday morning quarterback. I know I have done lots of things that looked afterwards silly or foolish or worse, when I thought I had good reasons at the time.

That all said, to me it sounds more like these people did not understand they were driving a skittish Ferrari. In car terms I would guess they thought they had a BMW 535ix (4 wheel drive).

The A57 web page ends with "Safety, durability, livability matter every bit as much to the cruising sailor and the Atlantic 57 excels in all respects." The web page sure does not go to any effort to describe when or how or in what conditions the boat could capsize.

Its easy to conclude these folks were pushing too hard with too little skill and many people want to end it with the simple observation that these folks should have sailed the boat better with more skill. tsmwebb for instance seems to thinks its all about the sailor. I understand that perspective in theory, but I at least am neither Schummaker or Joyon, so I expect to screw-up, and I hope/expect my boat will look after me.

However, the capsize wind strengths that folks shared in various posts for various models of performance multi's above lead me to believe there is more to the story than that.

I am wondering how many owners/prospects of this class are told/realize they are Ferrari's that require Michael Schummaker skills to be safe? I sure did not. I had been 'told/sold' they were BMW's that would be both fast and look after you. And if this particular boat is a good or a bad Ferrari?

Well I have learned something, which is that a broad range of the cats in this 'performance cruising' class are vulnerable to capsize in conditions that we do not find unusual or uncommon if the sailors screw up. Perhaps I should have known that but I did not.

I am still not sure where my Irens design would fit, but I now have better questions to ask.

[tsmwebb]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I try not to judge sailors from a distance. It's too easy to Monday morning quarterback. I know I have done lots of things that looked afterwards silly or foolish or worse, when I thought I had good reasons at the time.

Well said. Also Mr Wright has been very generous providing his description of the loss and his thoughts throughout. That in itself is a great service and I'm grateful to him and respect him for his honesty and openness. I've done far more than my share of stupid things and I can only imagine how hard it would be to man up like Wright has in such a public and complete way. I am impressed.

Of course, having put his experience out there folks are bound to discuss it. So, with apologies and in the spirit of constructive criticism it seems painfully evident that GW made a series of mistakes in this loss which suggest a poor understanding of his boat and the marine environment and he reports involvement in a long and remarkable history of boat disasters in both monohulls and multihulls. He also seems to have a contemptuous disregard for the weather. To me this all suggests that GW did not operate this boat with a reasonably expected level of care and apparently was unaware of his lack of knowledge and skill. The term anosognosia comes to mind. Based solely on my reading of GW's account I believe he was opperating Anna in a way that almost guaranteed disaster given enough offshore time.

Here is the nub: I absolutely believe that the A57 is a particularly seaworthy design. More seaworthy in most respects than most similar sized cruising cats. Certainly far more seaworthy than my A42 which I have put many offshore miles on or, indeed, any 40 foot cruising cat that I am aware of. Yet a combination of poor handling and bad luck resulted in Anna's loss in conditions that while difficult may well be experienced by any long term offshore cruiser at some point. And this brings up the question of what a boat should do for it's crew.

Its easy to conclude these folks were pushing too hard with too little skill and many people want to end it with the simple observation that these folks should have sailed the boat better with more skill. tsmwebb for instance seems to thinks its all about the sailor. I understand that perspective in theory, but I at least am neither Schummaker or Joyon, so I expect to screw-up, and I hope/expect my boat will look after me.

And here is the simple truth: multihulls are not self-righting and can not look after you in some circumstances. It is a fact that in regards to capsize a greater level of care is required when sailing a multihull. No multihull sailor can operate safely without understanding this fact. A multihull must be sailed with the knowledge that when it comes to capsize you don't get any second chances. If that is not acceptable then a multihull is not an appropreate choice.

However, safety is a complex subject. The multihull fleet has a very good safety record even though it is, by definition, sailed by average sailors. For instance I am a bipedal hominid and that's where the resemblance between me Joyon ends. I have had the privileged of sailing with a few exceptionally talented sailors and am aware of how painfully ordinary my own skills and abilities are. Also, I am aware that all multihulls can be capsized by the wind. I have raced and cruised monohulls all of my life, have a lot of offshore miles in them and still very much enjoy sailing them and take every opportunity to do so. I don't have a death wish (indeed am a coward at heart) and I take my loved ones on my boats with me. I am an ordinary sailor, I take safety seriously and have considered the danger of capsize. Yet I bought an Atlantic 42 catamaran years ago and have sailed it all over the Pacific. I simply would not have done that if I didn't believe that an ordinary sailor could navigate an Atlantic 42 safely offshore. In a previous post I have tried to address seaworthiness and why I think that the apparent wind in which a design will capsize with FULL SAIL set is not strongly correlated to seaworthiness. I will not type it again this morning. Suffice it to say that the record of multihull safety, my experience and theory all strongly suggest to me that typical sailors can and do navigate multihulls safely offshore.

I am wondering how many owners/prospects of this class are told/realize they are Ferrari's that require Michael Schummaker skills to be safe? I sure did not. I had been 'told/sold' they were BMW's that would be both fast and look after you. And if this particular boat is a good or a bad Ferrari?

I think you are engaging in hyperbole and making a false dichotomy. Your analogy is silly. Lots of folks crash BMWs. Your obsession with the idea that idea that a boat should be able to sail around all the time with all its sails set is absurd for any multihull. Your assertion that the type is overpowered and difficult to handle seems to be made up out of thin air with a disregard for both the facts of the designs and their history of performance.

It may well be that multis or performance cruising multis (and that is what we are talking about here) are not appropriate to your style of sailing. They do require a different operational philosophy. I don't believe that safe running of the type is beyond the capabilities of an average sailor. However, they must be sailed in a different way than monos and folks, perhaps like you, with a lot of experience that have ingrained habits that are not compatible with multihull sailing may not be well suited to multihulls.

I am still not sure where my Irens design would fit, but I now have better questions to ask.

FWIW, if it has decent light air performance you'll be able to sail it over with only its fore and aft sails in less than 40 knots APPARENT. Maybe it would help to think of the last two reefs in the main in the terms that you think of your spinnaker. Like the spin there are certainly many times offshore where it is appropriate to set the whole main but you need to be proactive and aware of the potential for disaster when they're flying.

Tom

[Kettlewell]

However, they must be sailed in a different way than monos and folks, perhaps like you, with a lot of experience that have ingrained habits that are not compatible with multihull sailing may not be well suited to multihulls.

I don't think "ingrained habits" are the problem. It is the understanding, gained after much experience cruising under all conditions, that things do go wrong and you need a margin of safety to compensate. The squall that catches you at night, the sheet that jams as you try to release it, the crew that falls asleep on watch and misses the weather report. Everyone makes mistakes at some point, and every boat has breakdowns.

[tsmwebb]

Originally Posted by bayview

if one was in 40 knots true, you are going to see figures around 60 on the apparent wind display.

Not so sure about your numbers BV. Hard for me to make out from the report and I don't trust anemometers much but I'm thinking high 40's low 50's TWS are more likely. Maybe more...

Doing this with a calculator and off the top of my head so check em please but I get with boat speed 20 knots and apparent wind angle 090 and apparent wind speed is 60 then true wind is ~63 knots. If boat speed is 20 and apparent wind is 70 degrees true winds speed is ~56 knots. Same but with 60 degrees apparent angle true is around 53 knots. And at 50 degrees apparent TWS would be about 50 knots... AWA 40 TWS ~47. AWA 30 TWS 44...

Even if you assume they were going 25 knots, AWA 30 degrees that's still > 40 knots TWS. But they would not have reported the apparent wind going aft requiring them to have had a AWA much less than 30 to start with, they wouldn't go that fast with that AWA and so on. Not realistic so I think that's the absolute lower bound if the evidence is as reported.

All the results that can reasonably be called reaching suggest winds well over 40. My guess would be ~60 degrees apparent wind angle => ~ 50 knots TWS but I wouldn't bet a pile of money on it.

Tom