Large Cat Flipped off Niue

[ub1]

reef when short handed, pretty simple

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by ub1

reef when short handed, pretty simple

Yeah…but simple seems boring for those who are not satisfied with one hull

[tsmwebb]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Yes, in the superyacht world, winches with 'backwind' (powered reverse) capability are quite common. These winches are normally controlled by PLC. And you have a turn key EventHorizon solution if you added a couple solid state blige pump sensor (or a B&G mercury heel switch) under the hull. BUT it would be an expensive and complex solution. I bought a pair of the backwind winches for a project I worked on last year and they were £26,000.00 each! And you would have the plc and sensors to keep working., and wires to run around the boat. It's a solution that really does not meet KISS.

I am not sure how many you would sell, especially if a $50 spectra lashing solves the end problem.

Yes, they aren't really "off the shelf". Each one is hand built to the specific application right down to the line that will be used. I was only pointing them out because they solve all the problems one needs to work out to make a reliable two way winch. I don't think a standard self tailing deck winch is readily amenable to modification to a two way mode.

IMO, you're right, the spectra fuse thing is a far more elegant solution if it can be tuned reliably. It's simple and cheap. If it goes off recovery should be easy. The battens will keep the sail civilized and tucking in the next reef gets it all back under control. No biggie and if one were to blow in a near capsize the next reef would be the right move anyway.

Tom

[Factor]

I really dont get the portion of this discussion in relation to "fuses" and sheet release systems etc.

I can put a reef in standing in a protected cockpit in literally 20 seconds, take it out in not much more. Reef early reef often. Reef when you its prudent - eg I put at least one reef in at night off shore.

Cant get much simpler or safer than that - have simple reliable systems and sail the boat accordingly.

[donradcliffe]

I think the reel winch with heel sensor is in line with the multi-million dollar cats, and wouldn't be surprised to see one developed.

For us ordinary mortals, a spectra lashing of a single mainsheet block to the boom, with a bight of line as a secondary attachment, might be a cheap solution--when the spectra breaks, the boom swings out, but can still be retrieved by pulling in the mainsheet. However, a safe load lashing is probably going to break more often than you would like due to the dynamic loads--for instance a gybe or slatting sails.

[Southern Star]

Tom (tsmwebb), you had it right when you pointed out that "wind induced capsize is not a function of size"; you later, however, say that "bigger is more seaworthy and more comfortable and generally faster". I believe that the criticism of an Atlantic 55 or 57 for a cruising couple is not meant to be a denial of the obvious, but rather a recognition of the fact that such a large sail area, in such a light boat requires more attention than most cruising couples are prepared/able to provide.

As you say, increased LOA is does not reduce the risk of wind-induced capsize; however, reducing the CE of the sailplan and increasing the displacement does. Which boat is more 'seaworthy', a cat with a smaller LOA, a greater displacement, a smaller SA and a lower CE to the sailplan, or a longer, faster boat with lighter displacement and a higher CE and significantly greater SA? Yes, I know beam and CG are factors here as well, but.....

In terms of monohulls, one could compare say, a Contessa 26 with a Flying Tiger 10. Both are monohulls, both have some form of accomodation but they are as different as can be. Which is more seaworthy/suitable for extended cruising, the 32 foot Flying Tiger or the 26 foot Contessa?

Brad

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

In terms of monohulls, one could compare say, a Contessa 26 with a Flying Tiger 10. Both are monohulls, both have some form of accomodation but they are as different as can be. Which is more seaworthy/suitable for extended cruising, the 32 foot Flying Tiger or the 26 foot Contessa?

Brad

On the seaworthy question (as in which one will be safest at sea) thats really easy - the one that is sailed prudently and carefully, a contessa sailed by a dipstick will be more dangerous than a flying tiger sailed by a careful prudent sailor.

next question

[Southern Star]

Factor, you can't really believe that all boats are equally 'seaworthy' for all purposes. Yes, of course the competence of the sailor is a huge 'factor' in safety offshore, but it is not the only one.

Perhaps you aren't interested in aspects of boat design that effect seaworthiness for offshore sailing, but others may be and your curt dismissal (next question) is hardly conducive to discussion. In any event, when attempting to analyze what occurred in this instance, aspects of the design of the Atlantic 55/57 are clearly relevant.

Brad

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Factor, you can't really believe that all boats are equally 'seaworthy' for all purposes.

Cant I - - whoops sorry - my bad I didn't realise that I couldnt

Yes, of course the competence of the sailor is a huge 'factor' in safety offshore, but it is not the only one.

True - but it is easily the most important

Perhaps you aren't interested in aspects of boat design that effect seaworthiness for offshore sailing,

And your basis for saying that is what. I simply answered your question in a way that was meant to indicate that the sailor is the key safety feature on any boat.

Of course I am interested in design - your assumptive behaviour is equally .....

hardly conducive to discussion

.

In any event, when attempting to analyze what occurred in this instance, aspects of the design of the Atlantic 55/57 are clearly relevant.

Yep - but not as relevant as the attitude of the crew.

Which was my point

Sorry if I was too flippant.

The fact remains, the sailor is the key safety factor.

[bill good]

This story has a long series of 'things not to do'. Each on its own not to bad but in series, the result is as expected. Our job is not to 'investigate' but to ensure if in a like situation we can bring our boat & crew home in one piece. Ask yourself 'how would I've done this?' This is the typical 'Swiss Cheese Model'. If not aware of what that is look it up!! I do not believe for one minute there is anything unsafe with this vessel. All the heavy aircraft flying in the sky right now are not in a micro burst conditions right now, but all the crew have many simulator sessions ahead in their time in the cockpit covering what is required to do if it does happen on dark night.

The good news was no life loss. SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT!!

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by bill good

Ask yourself 'how would I've done this?'

Yes, great attitude when examining any such situation. The value is not in criticising this crew or boat, but in learning what you can for your crew and boat.

I do think there is something to the statement that many first time buyers of large and complex boats don't know, are not told, and are in fact mislead about what they are getting into. These boats are what they are, there is nothing inherently bad or wrong with them, but they are different and require different skill levels than smaller and simpler and lower performance boats.

On a big sophisticated boat there is a premium placed on anticipating and avoiding problems, because when something does go wrong the forces and consequences are huge and you then need to know exactly what to do in what sequence. And unlike sophisticated cars or airplanes or almost any other product these owners will be familiar with, big sophisticated boats do not have a lot of engineering behind them and things will break and will not work properly and will be hard to get at and maintain/fix - and there is no good user training or instruction or users manual.

Now in return for all that extra requirement for anticipation and skill and knowledge and maintenance you do get increased comfort and speed and 'elegance/style'. So it's just one of many compromises - not necessarily good or bad - just the owners choice/decision. But it would be best if the owners really understood what they were getting into and IMHO the industry does not really help them in that.

Regarding size, in both monos and multis, I personally think there is often a 'bad zone' between about 55' to about 70'. Boats in that size can be quite a handful (both in handling and in maintenance) for a couple but are often not really big enough for a full time crew (comfortably). There are of course exceptions to that observation - the dashews do just fine as a couple in 80'ers and we know a couple that does fine in an 112'er (except they take a third on passages). But I do think it is something to think carefully about before getting into a boat in that size range.

[Southern Star]

Sorry Factor, you are correct - you are entitled to believe that all boats are equally seaworthy. You are also entitled to believe in Santa Claus....

And no, you didn't 'answer my question' concerning which BOAT was more SEAWORTHY for extended cruising - you compared apples and oranges. If it makes it easier for you to eliminate the static, 'assuming all else is equal', which boat would be more seaworthy for extended cruising? All else would include the competence of the crew, the level of maintenance, the cargo/stores (let us assume neither is carrying nitro/rocket fuel, etc.), the sail inventory, etc., etc.

I (and I suspect everyone else) agrees that the competence/prudence of the crew is a huge factor in offshore safety, but the seaworthiness of the boat itself is a separate issue.

Cheers!

Brad

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

And unlike sophisticated cars or airplanes or almost any other product these owners will be familiar with, big sophisticated boats do not have a lot of engineering behind them and things will break and will not work properly and will be hard to get at and maintain/fix - and there is no good user training or instruction or users manual.

I have a problem with pretty much everything in this paragraph.

1) Big sophisticated boats typically have big sophisticated engineering behind them.

2) Things break and will not work properly because flawed humans designed and manufactured the boat made of flawed materials from earth. That is the reality of ANY machine. Sometimes I feel like people under appreciate the harshness of the ocean environment (even on a good day) and the destructive factor it is on a boat.

3) Components being hard to reach or hard to repair is just another fact of life . This is no different on cars or planes. If you have a finite amount of space sometimes you can't put everything out in the open. Similarly, there are designs that necessitate something being in an unfortunate location because compared to the overall functionality it is relatively unimportant. Annoying yes, bad design...meh, not always. This is no different on cares or planes.

4) No good training/instruction or users manual? Again, just not true. There is plenty of training/instruction and boat information out there. Just like with a boat or a car that information doesn't magically seep into you're brain. You need to seek it out and learn it. That is the sailors/pilots/drivers responsibility.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

This is taking us a bit off thread . . . but:

1) Big sophisticated boats typically have big sophisticated engineering behind them.

Hmmm . . . I happen to know the engineer budgets behind quite a few models and they are TINY, not even a rounding error, compared to the budgets for designing and engineering a car or an airplane or even a carbon racing bike. They are about the same size as the engineer budget behind a new snow board model! Just fyi I happen to currently be CEO of a specialty carbon fiber company and know quite a bit about my customers enginering budgets.

2) Things break and will not work properly because flawed humans designed and manufactured the boat made of flawed materials from earth. That is the reality of ANY machine. Sometimes I feel like people under appreciate the harshness of the ocean environment (even on a good day) and the destructive factor it is on a boat.

Sure, fine . . . but my point was that many owners expect that the boat will work as reliabily as their Mercedes, and the industry generally does not do anything to dissuade them of that, and that is just plain not true.

3) Components being hard to reach or hard to repair is just another fact of life . This is no different on cars or planes. If you have a finite amount of space sometimes you can't put everything out in the open. Similarly, there are designs that necessitate something being in an unfortunate location because compared to the overall functionality it is relatively unimportant. Annoying yes, bad design...meh, not always. This is no different on cares or planes.

Excuse me have you ever worked on a jet engine? I don't think so if you think their design process or accessably are at all comparable to working on a yacht! Just fyi, I was involved in QA at GE jet engines a bit more than a decade ago.

4) No good training/instruction or users manual? Again, just not true. There is plenty of training/instruction and boat information out there. Just like with a boat or a car that information doesn't magically seep into you're brain. You need to seek it out and learn it. That is the sailors/pilots/drivers responsibility.

So, please point me to a high quality manual or course of instruction designed and oriented to handling and maintaining a large HP multihull?

Event, I spent last year project managing a superyacht build specifically because I was interested to see if the mega dollar superyachts had any better engineering and build quality than our regular sail boats and was interested to see first hand they they do not.

Quite honestly I think the industry has gotten itself into a bind - it grew up with craftsmen making pretty simple boats that they had already generations of experience building. That worked very well. But now they are offering very sophisticated systems and high performance designs without those generations of experience in how to make them work and also without the big engineering teams that make those work in other products (like cars and aeroplanes). So instead the customers are in fact stuck and made to do the product development.

The industry is tiny. North Sails, the worlds biggest sail maker has only about 1/10 the revenues of Trek bike (the #2 or #3 bike maker).

[tsmwebb]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

...I believe that the criticism of an Atlantic 55 or 57 for a cruising couple is not meant to be a denial of the obvious, but rather a recognition of the fact that such a large sail area, in such a light boat requires more attention than most cruising couples are prepared/able to provide.

As you say, increased LOA is does not reduce the risk of wind-induced capsize; however, reducing the CE of the sailplan and increasing the displacement does. Which boat is more 'seaworthy', a cat with a smaller LOA, a greater displacement, a smaller SA and a lower CE to the sailplan, or a longer, faster boat with lighter displacement and a higher CE and significantly greater SA? Yes, I know beam and CG are factors here as well, but.....

Interesting comments, Brad. I'm in a rush so I can't reply as completely as I'd like -- hopefully I'll come back to it. Let me point out that as rigged the wind speed for capsize of the A57 was between 50-60 knots depending on the assumptions made about the jib's contribution to the capsize (Chris has the numbers up on his web site and they've been linked here -- again I'll try to get back to it). Question: how many multihulls have a capsize wind strength of >50 knots? Yes, the A57 needed another reef but I believe just about every cat on the market would have needed a reef.

From the account of the owner and what I've read elsewhere there is no indication that they failed to reef because it was too hard or because they didn't have sufficient warning. They failed to reef because they didn't believe a reef was necessary. FWIW, I've seen the NZ Met Service WX faxes for the period and there was a front indicated, they had ample warning of it's approach, they had an extreme bar reading, they observed the front visually and on radar and they dismissed it as insignificant. I still don't really understand their reasoning but there is zero indication in anything I've read so far that they made any attempt to work the boat until the gust line hit. At which point the larger moment of the big boat probably gave them a touch more time to react than they'd have had on a smaller cat but, very sadly, not enough.

Anyway, bottom line, I don't believe there are many, if any, production cats out there that would be expected to survive a 60 knot gust without taking some action to shorten sail. I think there are plenty of lessons to be learned from this loss but I don't really buy the argument that the crew was unable to run the boat because of its size or sail plan. I think there is no evidence of that in the record.

In terms of monohulls, one could compare say, a Contessa 26 with a Flying Tiger 10. Both are monohulls, both have some form of accomodation but they are as different as can be. Which is more seaworthy/suitable for extended cruising, the 32 foot Flying Tiger or the 26 foot Contessa?

Brad

The cases are not good analogies. With multis the transverse mass moment of inertia is such a large factor in seaworthiness that size in and of itself is far more important than it is with self-righting monos. Of course other design factors are important -- strength, bridge-deck clearance &c, &c.


Apologies for the rushed editing.

Tom