Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 30-04-2015, 15:01   #31
Registered User
 
europaflyer's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 385
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Transmitterdan - I think those are some very fair points. I'll certainly change my mental order for sourcing leaks... although tasting it to see if it is fresh or seawater will still stay at the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minaret View Post
I do believe I've made my opinion on this very clear many times before. Won't waste breath doing so yet again. I don't have the available time of many of the amateurs here, I'm too busy running one of the busiest boatyards on the west coast. Suffice it to say, my opinion has not changed, nor will it. It is directly in line with the MAIB report and supported by the opinion of Neil and every single other pro I know. That is a large number of professionals, I rarely miss an Ibex event. I doubt anyone else here has ever attended one, despite its international nature. In short, everyone who actually knows anything about the subject is in agreement. Hull liners are madness. The world will be a better place when they have gone the way of the dodo.
Thanks for replying, and sorry for making you repeat yourself. It's good to hear someone in the know back this up.
__________________

__________________
europaflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 01:03   #32
Freelance Delivery Skipper..
 
boatman61's Avatar

Community Sponsor
Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK/Portugal
Posts: 18,605
Images: 2
Send a message via Skype™ to boatman61
pirate Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
Yes, it is hard to repair. No it is not thermal cameras but devices that were developed from the medical hardware: Some work with ultrasounds other with magnetism. I am not an expert but the guy from the shipyard were I have the boat is. He patented recently one. I have seen amazing images of interior bonds and cores.

I guess that for each high tech surveyor there are hundreds of low tech ones that bang on the hull to see if it sounds right
Ahhhh... the good old Peen Hammer and Screwdriver test..
__________________

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Click on de Pic 4 de Site^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
boatman61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 02:33   #33
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Porto San Rocco, Trieste
Boat: Jeanneau 43ds
Posts: 102
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Oh Dear! Maybe some of you more knowledgeable guys can help. I shared a Beneteau Oceanis 400 (hull number one), 1992 , for many years. This has the same construction using a hull liner. Is the Oceanis 400 the same hull as the First 40.7?

There is a fore-aft crack in the hull liner that is situated about 18" forward of the foot of the pillar support for the mast. The crack itself is about 9" long. No sign of any cracking on the outside when the boat is taken out of the water for her annual scrub.

When i first noticed the crack the boat was only about 1-2 yrs old and Beneteau sent someone to inspect it. All they did was to do a light filler-type repair. They never cut out part of the liner (matrix?) to see if there was any damage underneath. We never grounded the boat apart from mud in a quiet overnight anchorage in a falling tide. I have always thought that this crack is due to flexing in rough seas but mostly this boat has been used for coastal sailing on S coast of UK and NW Spain.Think the worst the boat has ever had was SW F7-8 returning to UK frm the Channel Islands, occasionally SW F5-6 on the nose sailing down to Dartmouth/Plymouth and a N F6 on the nose sailing northwards frm Vigo. The rest of the time she gets treated quite lightly. Never really raced apart from a few Round-The-Island's (that is around the Isle of Wight for those who are strangers to S Coast of UK).

Do you think this rather superficial-looking crack is serious? The keel has never been taken off in her 23-year life.
__________________
SaltyMetals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 05:56   #34
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 4,959
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyMetals View Post
Oh Dear! Maybe some of you more knowledgeable guys can help. I shared a Beneteau Oceanis 400 (hull number one), 1992 , for many years. .... Is the Oceanis 400 the same hull as the First 40.7?
.
No, very different boats, very different hulls.
Polux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 08:19   #35
Registered User
 
TeddyDiver's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arctic Ocean
Boat: Under construction 35' ketch
Posts: 1,580
Images: 2
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
No, very different boats, very different hulls.
He actally asked if some of the more knowledgeable guys can help
ROFL
__________________
TeddyDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 08:38   #36
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Yorktown, VA
Boat: 1984 Cal 31
Posts: 132
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

The idea of intentionally grounding a bolted on keel boat during instruction is not exactly the smartest thing I have ever heard. I understand wanting students to learn the process of getting 'unstuck'. However, a boat with an encapsulated lead keel would likely be a better choice for this task.

I learned a fair amount in this thread. I definitely learned some things to look for when considering future boats. And I am happy I have an integral keel on my old boat.

Tankersteve
__________________
tankersteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 08:53   #37
Registered User
 
neilpride's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in the world
Boat: csy 44 tall rig.
Posts: 2,760
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyMetals View Post
Oh Dear! Maybe some of you more knowledgeable guys can help. I shared a Beneteau Oceanis 400 (hull number one), 1992 , for many years. This has the same construction using a hull liner. Is the Oceanis 400 the same hull as the First 40.7?

There is a fore-aft crack in the hull liner that is situated about 18" forward of the foot of the pillar support for the mast. The crack itself is about 9" long. No sign of any cracking on the outside when the boat is taken out of the water for her annual scrub.

When i first noticed the crack the boat was only about 1-2 yrs old and Beneteau sent someone to inspect it. All they did was to do a light filler-type repair. They never cut out part of the liner (matrix?) to see if there was any damage underneath. We never grounded the boat apart from mud in a quiet overnight anchorage in a falling tide. I have always thought that this crack is due to flexing in rough seas but mostly this boat has been used for coastal sailing on S coast of UK and NW Spain.Think the worst the boat has ever had was SW F7-8 returning to UK frm the Channel Islands, occasionally SW F5-6 on the nose sailing down to Dartmouth/Plymouth and a N F6 on the nose sailing northwards frm Vigo. The rest of the time she gets treated quite lightly. Never really raced apart from a few Round-The-Island's (that is around the Isle of Wight for those who are strangers to S Coast of UK).

Do you think this rather superficial-looking crack is serious? The keel has never been taken off in her 23-year life.
Without see a picture hard to make a opinión, the hulls are diferent, then if you post a pic maybe we can make a opinión, my best bet for you is to get profesional advice from GRP pros from a reputable boatyard, to me if the crack is just superficial not big deal since the mast compresión tend to crunch the liners a bit, if is Deep and long time to worry, from what i see Liners are prone to develope cracks here or there, most cases cosmetic stuff, but get profesional advice if you are concerned....
__________________
neilpride is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 10:27   #38
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 4,959
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeddyDiver View Post
He actally asked if some of the more knowledgeable guys can help
ROFL
You mean the information I provide regarding some of his questions is wrong? If not (and it is not) what the purpose of your post? Just being intentionally disagreeable? You have nothing more to do?
Polux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 12:59   #39
Registered User
 
Muckle Flugga's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aboard the Ocean wave
Boat: 55' sloop.
Posts: 1,426
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
Your post is a bit confusing since it is not clear what are your opinion and what are opinions of shipyards that have actually repaired the boat and Beneteau statements.

Regarding the first 40.7 to be a "bad joke" I don't think so. Several have made several full racing offshore seasons in very though conditions (including several Hobarts) without the boat experiencing keel or other problems. One has been sailed on a full several year circumnavigation with high latitude sailing (Antarctic) facing severe storms without any significant problem.

The size and the thickness of the baking plate did comply with the rule when the boat was designed however (much against what you have been saying) the RCD has been improving all the time the safety standards and today the boat would have to be built stronger on that area.

I believe the fact that most accidents relating with groundings and matrix detachment have been more frequent on this boat because it is simply the one of that type that has been built in bigger numbers. The First 40.7 was a very popular boat and 550 were built.

The boats are not all the same and a lighter performance cruiser in what regards groundings cannot be built to have the same resistance has an heavy cruiser. If a grounding occurs the boat should be properly surveyed and given the way it is built a proper inspection is not easy.

What seems more worrisome in all those that inspected the boat and in what Beneteau says is that a clear protocol is not established in what regards procedures in case of grounding and posterior inspection. They refer also that on the the PDF document that analyses the Cheeki Rafiti case.

Beneteau should make more recommendations regarding that, establishing a maximum safety protocol regarding inspections and also provide information and the needed pieces to upgrade the boat to the new safety standards.

Neil, most of the time I don't disagree with you (except in what regards new technologies and the improvements they bring), just with the exaggerated and inflammatory way you tend to deal with the subjects and that is in my opinion the case when you say about the First 40.7 : "the CAT A decal in this boat is to me a bad ass joke without further modifications".
So did many De Haviland Comets make "several" such trips? The question is how many, and how many groundings? The MAIB report is pretty clear: is is NOT possible to properly assess damage from groundings OR heavy weather on these vessels. Even frequent bouts of going to windward in decent seas are implicated for matrix/liner separation in this report.

It is, if you read it carefully, extraordinarily damning stuff.
__________________
Muckle Flugga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 13:14   #40
Registered User
 
Muckle Flugga's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aboard the Ocean wave
Boat: 55' sloop.
Posts: 1,426
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
One other thing is obliquely mentioned in the MAIB report. The CR master searched over the course of many hours for a leak and apparently never considered that the water could be coming through the keel bolt holes. This is another danger that comes from repeating the mantra that thousands of these type boats make it across every year. Repeated enough times it tends to reduce the probability of keel failure in the mind of a tired crew. The master initially concluded that the water was from a fresh water tank. That could be a tired mind at work but could also be because keel failure is way down the mental check list of most of us.

Owners and crew need to be alerted to potential failures in the right order of probability. The head in the sand approach some take contribute to losses such as this IMO. If the crew were sensitized to keel failure as a real possibility they might have been able to save the boat by acting early. I think we should acknowledge the possibility of keel failure and when a cursory check of thru hulls doesn't turn up anything then the keel needs to be checked early and often. But that doesn't happen because the proponents of light matrix built boats don't want to put the keel (i.e. liner/hull attachment) at the top of the flooding check list. They tend to put it last which is not where it should be. Someone mentioned FMECA and this is a complicated topic. But even if the probability of keel failure is less than 1% it should be high on the list of things to check because the effect of such a failure is 100% loss of boat and crew. That's why FMECA teaches to put low probability but terrible consequence events high on the checklist. But marketing people hate FMECA because it makes it seem as if the product is no good. They should learn to embrace it and so should owners and crew.

The MAIB report hints that RYA instructors should not let students ground these type boats as an educational tool. Or worse, as a way to automatically fail a student they don't think deserves to pass. If an instructor thinks a student doesn't deserve to pass it is a dumb thing IMO to let them ground the boat just to avoid giving a true appraisal of their skill. Maybe instructors do this because they don't think any damage will happen to the boat in a "soft grounding". Owners and masters need to change their way of thinking and protect and maintain the keel as if their life depends on it. Because it does.
You are 100 percent correct. Elsewhere and under a different handle (well, my name as it happens) I wrote a piece suggesting it was indeed keel bolt failure during the actual emergency, BEFORE the hull was discovered to be without its keel, and that the vessel itself should be sought in case the crew were still inside post sudden inversion. This was flagged to my mind simply because of:

1. Crew inabilty to source water ingress origin.
2. Comparatively weak keel structure in this kind of vessel.
3. This vessel having been heavily raced/chartered
4. This vessel having shallow bilges with the source of ingress hidden by depth, masking the keel issue. In the case of separation of matrix/liner from hull, the skip would likely have had to place his hand on the bolts themselves and feel for movment, as it may well not have ben obvious, since the matrix/liner may well have been moving above the skin, thus masking bolt head movement.

I find the MAIB report damning, primarily to the overall design of these craft, which does not sufficiently allow for inspection post damage and FURTHER implies that simple OCEAN SERVICE may cause separation from the hull of the matrix/liner, thus fatally weakening the strucure.

How such vessels may ever obtain Cat O rating I have no idea. The report states the opinion of a single surveyor, who considers that they might, "with modifications" which modifications are not specified!

With regard to the practise of inentional groundings during training and examination, I do not do this kind of thing, but I can undrstand perhaps where it may come from, being practise developed though boats designed to take the ground on a reular basis, whether in the often drying harbours of highly tidal places or else through the long range cruisers prior to the whole "Cruiser/racer" bs that has infected almost every aspect of boatbuilding in the past 20 years. In many ways the latter has been a method of making the boatbuilding indusry very profitable to mass producers, as it enabled them to market "lightness of build" to customers as a virtue, rather than a deficit.
__________________
Muckle Flugga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 14:46   #41
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 4,959
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga View Post
So did many De Haviland Comets make "several" such trips? The question is how many, and how many groundings? The MAIB report is pretty clear: is is NOT possible to properly assess damage from groundings OR heavy weather on these vessels. Even frequent bouts of going to windward in decent seas are implicated for matrix/liner separation in this report.

It is, if you read it carefully, extraordinarily damning stuff.
I think you did misunderstood the document they do not say that.

1. It is difficult to readily identify areas where a matrix detachment has occurred in GRP yachts manufactured with a matrix bonded to the hull. This is especially the case where the keel is not removed prior to inspection and where floors have been layed up between frames.
...
4. False indications may be obtained when hammer testing to identify matrix detachment, particularly in the area around the keel washer plates, owing to the clamping effect of the keel bolts and where the rig has been tensioned to cause compression of the matrix/hull attachment.

5. There is currently no industry-wide guidance on appropriate methods for identifying matrix detachment and conducting repairs, or on the circumstances that would necessitate keel removal.
...
1. It is possible for matrix detachment to occur in GRP yachts manufactured with a matrix bonded to the hull, resulting in loss of structural strength. The probability of this occurring will increase with more frequent and harder yacht usage.....
....


They don't say that a matrix will detach himself from the hull in any given set of circumstances. They say that is a possibility and therefore the condition of the bond should be checked regularly (as many other parts of the yacht: rudder, rig and so on).

They don't say that it is impossible to properly assess damage from groundings Or heavy weather on these vessels, they say that It is difficult to readily identify areas where a matrix detachment has occurred and that non technological and primitive ways to access damage like hammer testing are inadequate for doing it. They say also that there are no industry-wide guidance on appropriate methods for identifying matrix detachment or and conducting repairs.

Regarding repairs Beneteau replied stating the work that is needed, regarding the way to find if the bond is compromised, it is obvious that the primitive methods most surveyors use are not adequate to this case or many other high tech modern building solutions. Technological means are needed. I have said previously about that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
What seems more worrisome ..is that a clear protocol is not established in what regards procedures in case of grounding and posterior inspection. They refer also that on the the PDF document that analyses the Cheeki Rafiti case.

Beneteau should make more recommendations regarding that, establishing a maximum safety protocol regarding inspections and also provide information and the needed pieces to upgrade the boat to the new safety standards...

they should say that in case of grounding the bond between the matrix and the hull should be checked by a surveyor with the help of an electronic device able to determine if the bond is consistent. If the bond is not consistent then the keel should be dropped off and a repair should be made, according to their recommendations.

They should say also that on the case of extensive heavy use of the boat in hard conditions (offshore racing) the bond between the matrix and the hull should be checked with the help of such devices each 5 years or so.

to verify if a matrix is bonded to the hull, without an expensive job the only thing you need is modern technology and devices that can read through the hull and show it to you. ..
Polux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 16:50   #42
Registered User
 
neilpride's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in the world
Boat: csy 44 tall rig.
Posts: 2,760
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Termal image i think is what you mean Paulo, is widely used by lots of surveyors, but then what if they spot liner delamination or bonding failure?? and i bet you a cold pack that if they aim the gun in a bunch of production boats fitted with internal grid liners they are going to found lots of suspect spots,, do you learn something from the Yard guys topic or the production boats topic?


Hollow beams liners are Hollow, like in many Beneteaus , and the fact the Cheeki Rafiki skipper cant spot the wáter ingress source let me think that maybe and just maybe the wáter rush inside of a hollow beam and exit in a diferent place far from the keel sump, but this is juts a theory...


You cant say if the bond is ok or not, mainly because the Liner and the real hull dont fitt even, lots of gaps and voids, thats why the pour enough plexus to fill the gaps and get a even bond as much as posible,,, then add the bulkheads, cabinet stuff, lockers, plumbing , etc.. in top of the liner and you see why is so tricky to detect and repair properly ,,, around the keel área could be ok to perform Glass repair Jobs due they are normally clear from obstacles, apart from the mast step área, but since the strenght of the hull and the liner rely in the bond aka Plexus, if it fail, you cant turn back the original strenght from the previous bond unless you unbond the whole dam thing and droped again with fresh glue, saying that the only way for us, GRP folks is to rebuild the afected área with glass tape , taking off fail glue and reglue is such a dirty task and in many cases imposible without destroy the interior, just figúrate if is worth or not...


So in sum,,,the only good place for cheap structural grid liners is a trash bin, and rest in peace, you cant spend 200.000 or 300.000 or whatever sum in a boat supposedly design for ocean sailing work and start to worry about the structure if you ran aground or sail to weather for days ,,, and this is the case with the 40,7, and think about why the earn the nickname of Bendytoys,,...
Cheers,
__________________
neilpride is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 19:06   #43
Registered User
 
Muckle Flugga's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aboard the Ocean wave
Boat: 55' sloop.
Posts: 1,426
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
I think you did misunderstood the document they do not say that.

1. It is difficult to readily identify areas where a matrix detachment has occurred in GRP yachts manufactured with a matrix bonded to the hull. This is especially the case where the keel is not removed prior to inspection and where floors have been layed up between frames.
...
4. False indications may be obtained when hammer testing to identify matrix detachment, particularly in the area around the keel washer plates, owing to the clamping effect of the keel bolts and where the rig has been tensioned to cause compression of the matrix/hull attachment.

5. There is currently no industry-wide guidance on appropriate methods for identifying matrix detachment and conducting repairs, or on the circumstances that would necessitate keel removal.
...
1. It is possible for matrix detachment to occur in GRP yachts manufactured with a matrix bonded to the hull, resulting in loss of structural strength. The probability of this occurring will increase with more frequent and harder yacht usage.....
....


They don't say that a matrix will detach himself from the hull in any given set of circumstances. They say that is a possibility and therefore the condition of the bond should be checked regularly (as many other parts of the yacht: rudder, rig and so on).

They don't say that it is impossible to properly assess damage from groundings Or heavy weather on these vessels, they say that It is difficult to readily identify areas where a matrix detachment has occurred and that non technological and primitive ways to access damage like hammer testing are inadequate for doing it. They say also that there are no industry-wide guidance on appropriate methods for identifying matrix detachment or and conducting repairs.

Regarding repairs Beneteau replied stating the work that is needed, regarding the way to find if the bond is compromised, it is obvious that the primitive methods most surveyors use are not adequate to this case or many other high tech modern building solutions. Technological means are needed. I have said previously about that:
Your defense of this design is spirited, and flawed. It iis quite clear (I did read the report meticulously and will give chapter and verse when I have time) that the authors imply that simply heavy SAILING of the boat can cause separation of the matrix from the hull. Grounding likewise, indeed specifically grounding perceived by the skipper to be LIGHT. Your defense based upon some idea that advanced methods of survey MAY reveal the true nature of the problem and have it then fixed (By means which are unspecified and stated to be disputed among expert opinion in this report, and have not been properly clarified by Beneteau) is frankly wasted. You admit that what you call "primitive" means of survey (i.e. those used by the overwhelming majority of actual surveyors in routine checks) are inadequate to detect a major problem. This means that skippers at sea who experience a grounding, albeit light, or else simply a bout of unusually heavy bashing by weather and waves will have zero means of determining whether serious or fatal damage to the hull has been caused.

This to me means absolutely that these boats should never be coded category 0, and are NOT ocean boats, since ocean boats, by definition MUST be able to sustain heavy poundings in remote areas and subsequently carry their crews home through further heavy poundings, without needing the attention of high level electronic devices to determine whether simply going through heavy weather for a long time has caused them to become unseaworthy! What equipment do you recommend that a skipper carries aboard his Beneteau First 40.7 out in the Bundu and the wilds of the world to determine whether his boat is falling apart or not? What do you think said skipper could actually do about it in any case?
__________________
Muckle Flugga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 19:44   #44
Registered User
 
Muckle Flugga's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aboard the Ocean wave
Boat: 55' sloop.
Posts: 1,426
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga View Post
What equipment do you recommend that a skipper carries aboard his Beneteau First 40.7 out in the Bundu and the wilds of the world to determine whether his boat is falling apart or not? What do you think said skipper could actually do about it in any case?
Apologies, should have been gender neutral. Sometimes the old formalities still break through in this old dog.
__________________
Muckle Flugga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 21:47   #45
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niagara Falls
Boat: Westsail 32
Posts: 313
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seymore View Post
This incident is very bothersome.
Conjecture is icky business.

At 0400 am on May 16th the skipper activated his PLB. There were other weak PLB signals. A container ship spotted an overturned hull 34 hours later, and couldn't investigate.

Several days later a USCG cutter found the overturned hull. A surface swimmer investigated, but he was not licenced to enter the boat. He found the life raft in place with its lanyard intact.

The odour is that the keel fell off and the boat overturned, trapping the crew inside. They could not open a hatch to get out. When the cargo ship found them, there's a small chance that they may have been still alive. When the CG ship found the boat, the bodies may have been inside.
__________________

__________________
Seymore is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki missing in mid-Atlantic 1000 islands General Sailing Forum 517 11-06-2014 16:32
Cheeki Rafiki gmthompson99 Monohull Sailboats 107 30-05-2014 13:37
Restart the search for the missing Cheeki Rafiki crew members. mikethedane General Sailing Forum 0 20-05-2014 08:47


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:24.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.