Cheeki Rafiki loss report

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

Who said I had not a clue?

I did and say it again.. Peace

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Then dont label the 40,7 CaT A, just B or C , with a shelter port not far away in case the failure happen, the 40,7 born like Cat B and later they stamp it the Cat A .

Some big confusion here. The Firts 40.7 was not born like a Class B and later passed to class A. The First 40.7 is far away of being a boat near the limit of a class A boat. On the First line you had several First at the time being the smaller one the 31.7, also a class A boat. That was the one that was near the border, being only class A with a deep draft keel. The First 40.7 is a much more seaworthy boat.

http://beneteaufirst317.webs.com/fir...cification.pdf

Originally Posted by neilpride

Is simple, if you make a product tricky to inspect and weak in the most vulnerable área in case of grounding and dangerous if no proper action is taken regards the structure ,,simple that product dont deserve to be labeled Cat a.

A cat A boat means that a well maintained boat is able to sustain wind and wave size that are consistent with normal but hard ocean conditions.

If a product is hard to inspect it should be established a protocol for those inspections stating how they should be done, I have already stated my opinion about that.

Saying that a boat structure is not designed for taking groundings and "is dangerous if no proper action is taken regards the structure", if needed is a fact but it only means that after a grounding that structure should be thoroughly checked and properly repaired if needed.

The problem of a proper protocol and the need of technological tools for making the inspection of boats with this kind of structure is far from being restricted to the first 40.7. All modern Beneteaus and Jeanneaus use this kind of structure and most of modern boats use bonded structures to the hull to distribute the loads from the keel and shrouds. Modern tools, other than the old hammer are needed to verify the quality of the structural bond.

A protocol for inspection of those bonds is a urgent necessity as possibly also a certification for the ones that are able to do it, that have the right tools and now how to use them. I agree with you that the actual difficulty in finding surveyors able to perform those inspections is a problem that is urgent to solve.

On that particular 40.7 the only tool used for testing was a hammer, a tool that was found inadequate by the ones that made the report and I mean the first grounding since in what regards the other 4 there is no information regarding inspections or repairs.

[a64pilot]

When I first got my boat, I did a really stupid thing and ran her aground coming out of the inlet at Ft Pierce, I missed a marker and went straight, she hit the side of the channel which was hard sand and went from 7 kts to zero, instantly. Knocked everybody down, hell of a noise, inertia turned the boat sideways. As I really didn't go aground, just hit a steep wall of sand, she backed right off.

I've since then had a very long protracted inspection of all the bulkheads etc. and can tell you no damage. I'm not so sure if it hadn't been an encapsulated full keel, or if it had extensive hull liners, I could say that.

From having inspected aircraft composites for a very long time, I can tell you the "coin tap test" is THE method most used, and with a trained ear, can find voids that almost nothing else will, in particular to be most effective for ultrasound on a composite, you need the base line, then you can look for changes, but without the baseline, it's not as effective as it could be.
Don't cut short the tapping hammer just because there are no computers or fancy monitors, it's actually a good method.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

Some big confusion here. The Firts 40.7 was not born like a Class B and later passed to class A. The First 40.7 is far away of being a boat near the limit of a class A boat. On the First line you had several First at the time being the smaller one the 31.7, also a class A boat. That was the one that was near the border, being only class A with a deep draft keel. The First 40.7 is a much more seaworthy boat.

http://beneteaufirst317.webs.com/fir...cification.pdf



A cat A boat means that a well maintained boat is able to sustain wind and wave size that are consistent with normal but hard ocean conditions.

If a product is hard to inspect it should be established a protocol for those inspections stating how they should be done, I have already stated my opinion about that.

Saying that a boat structure is not designed for taking groundings and "is dangerous if no proper action is taken regards the structure", if needed is a fact but it only means that after a grounding that structure should be thoroughly checked and properly repaired if needed.

The problem of a proper protocol and the need of technological tools for making the inspection of boats with this kind of structure is far from being restricted to the first 40.7. All modern Beneteaus and Jeanneaus use this kind of structure and most of modern boats use bonded structures to the hull to distribute the loads from the keel and shrouds. Modern tools, other than the old hammer are needed to verify the quality of the structural bond.

A protocol for inspection of those bonds is a urgent necessity as possibly also a certification for the ones that are able to do it, that have the right tools and now how to use them. I agree with you that the actual difficulty in finding surveyors able to perform those inspections is a problem that is urgent to solve.

On that particular 40.7 the only tool used for testing was a hammer, a tool that was found inadequate by the ones that made the report and I mean the first grounding since in what regards the other 4 there is no information regarding inspections or repairs.

If i understand , the 40,7 under the MGN UK , the boat is rated category 2 60 miles from a safe heaven years ago.

Quote.

If a Beneteau First 40.7 does indeed have a record of at least five years “safe history” in sea and weather conditions no less severe than those likely to be encountered in the mid Atlantic (for example) is a moot point but one which would have had to be have been proved to be the case prior to allowing the vessel to operate at category 0 under 4.2.2.5.2.

Quote.

There is no evidence to suggest Cheeki Rafiki or the dummy vessel had a certificate of construction for the hull itself (i.e the hull was built under direct BV supervision to an accepted standard) that would have allowed the vessel to be accepted under 4.2.2.3 of MGN 280.

Bureau Veritas decal is not stamped in the hull.

Quote.

The type certification would have to be considered further for compliance and the surveyor involved would have to prove this with supporting information (not in my experience always that easy on mass produced vessels) but it would seem possible from 4.2.2.5.1 of MGN 280 that a 40.7 would be perfectly acceptable on grounds of the BV type approval (noting ISO / RCD) as equivalent standard thus rendering the 5 years safe history argument unneeded and allowing the vessel to operate a area category 0; at least in terms of section 4.2 of MGN 280.

Quote.

It is of course noted that the 40.7 class is counted (at least according to the plaque on the aft of the vessel) as a RCD category A Ocean yacht under the Recreational Craft Directive but it is under 12m hull length (ISO 8666) so would be interesting to know how far the technical file / subsequent build was scrutinised by BV / notified body. An element to consider would be (normally present in a new builds file) the declaration of conformity and which ISO’s had been used to demonstrate conformity with the essential requirements. Then consider to what level a notified body would have been involved in any monitoring of build from hull #1 onwards? This line of thought is left open at this point as it begins to exceed the scope of this report.

And.

Area categories are as per section 3.2.1 of MGN 280. I note Cheeki Rafiki was
at one time coded to area category 2 under MGN 280 (this had expired at the
time of the loss) which is 60 miles from a safe haven (for 12 persons or 10
persons with more than 24 hours at sea) and that category 0 is unrestricted
service from a safe haven.

So, seems to me the boat under the SCV dont comply to be categorized for a sailing área 0 without modifications, and under the UK rules is categorized 2 prior to 0 , off course all this bureaucracy drama BS is a bit hard to understand maybe you can explain what they mean in all this notes..

To me is clear enough, the 40,7 is a racing versión with a cruising interior or the so called cruiser racer nickname, and the 40,7 is at the edge of the class rate and even fail in some aspects,,,, and is quite funny when you say they need to establish the tools to identified this problem, when in fact the tools are there and the surveyors have Access to this tools, quite frankly much better if Groupe Beneteau start to make the right things and stop piling the Ocean with crappy stuff ..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

If i understand , the 40,7 under the MGN UK , the boat is rated category 2 60 miles from a safe heaven years ago.

Quote.

If a Beneteau First 40.7 does indeed have a record of at least five years “safe history” in sea and weather conditions no less severe than those likely to be encountered in the mid Atlantic (for example) is a moot point but one which would have had to be have been proved to be the case prior to allowing the vessel to operate at category 0 under 4.2.2.5.2.

Quote.

There is no evidence to suggest Cheeki Rafiki or the dummy vessel had a certificate of construction for the hull itself (i.e the hull was built under direct BV supervision to an accepted standard) that would have allowed the vessel to be accepted under 4.2.2.3 of MGN 280.

Bureau Veritas decal is not stamped in the hull.

Quote.

The type certification would have to be considered further for compliance and the surveyor involved would have to prove this with supporting information (not in my experience always that easy on mass produced vessels) but it would seem possible from 4.2.2.5.1 of MGN 280 that a 40.7 would be perfectly acceptable on grounds of the BV type approval (noting ISO / RCD) as equivalent standard thus rendering the 5 years safe history argument unneeded and allowing the vessel to operate a area category 0; at least in terms of section 4.2 of MGN 280.

Quote.

It is of course noted that the 40.7 class is counted (at least according to the plaque on the aft of the vessel) as a RCD category A Ocean yacht under the Recreational Craft Directive but it is under 12m hull length (ISO 8666) so would be interesting to know how far the technical file / subsequent build was scrutinised by BV / notified body. An element to consider would be (normally present in a new builds file) the declaration of conformity and which ISO’s had been used to demonstrate conformity with the essential requirements. Then consider to what level a notified body would have been involved in any monitoring of build from hull #1 onwards? This line of thought is left open at this point as it begins to exceed the scope of this report.

And.

Area categories are as per section 3.2.1 of MGN 280. I note Cheeki Rafiki was
at one time coded to area category 2 under MGN 280 (this had expired at the
time of the loss) which is 60 miles from a safe haven (for 12 persons or 10
persons with more than 24 hours at sea) and that category 0 is unrestricted
service from a safe haven.

So, seems to me the boat under the SCV dont comply to be categorized for a sailing área 0 without modifications, and under the UK rules is categorized 2 prior to 0 , off course all this bureaucracy drama BS is a bit hard to understand maybe you can explain what they mean in all this notes..

To me is clear enough, the 40,7 is a racing versión with a cruising interior or the so called cruiser racer nickname, and the 40,7 is at the edge of the class rate and even fail in some aspects,,,, and is quite funny when you say they need to establish the tools to identified this problem, when in fact the tools are there and the surveyors have Access to this tools, quite frankly much better if Groupe Beneteau start to make the right things and stop piling the Ocean with crappy stuff ..

Neil, your confusion has become bigger. You were talking about Class A and Class B. Class A and class B are categories of the RCD (Recreational craft directive) mandatory to all European community. All new boats have to be mandatory certified on one or more classes to be sold.

Originally Posted by neilpride

Then dont label the 40,7 CaT A, just B or C , with a shelter port not far away in case the failure happen, the 40,7 born like Cat B and later they stamp it the Cat A .
...

Now you are talking about MGN categories. MGN means "Marine guidance notices" it is under supervision of MCA (Marine and coast Guard Agency), it is strictly a UK business and relates only to British commercially operated vessels. It applies to charter boats but not to recreational private boats.

Here you have an explanation of the different classes:

http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/...es-nid183.html

Nothing to do with RCD class A or B that corresponds to a certification that is mandatory to all recent boats and regards all pleasure crafts on the European community.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I've since then had a very long protracted inspection of all the bulkheads etc. and can tell you no damage. I'm not so sure if it hadn't been an encapsulated full keel, or if it had extensive hull liners, I could say that.

If your boat had a full hull liner, you wouldn't even be able to inspect it. Nor would anyone else. The methods of inspection that keep being mentioned here are cost prohibitive for anything but large boats and/or large repairs. Ultrasound is extremely expensive, and not very reliable. It can only scan relatively small areas at a time, and can be difficult to decipher and misleading. X Ray radiography can be a more helpful form of NDT, especially where keels and bolts are concerned. Of course, it's absolutely useless for detecting a failed liner bond. So is ultrasound. Thermal imaging, however, is the bee's knee's. I have been involved with a pretty fair amount, now. Started doing it before 2000. A few cogent points:


The typical method involves tenting the entire boat, then using a very large heater, such as a Tuco (10k), to evenly heat the entire structure of the boat to about 110-120 F. This can be quite pricey.


Then, as the boat cools, multiple images are taken, both of the entire vessel, and of problem areas. Dissimilar rates of cooling are what reveals information about the structure. Often, not enough images can be taken before the boat is too cool, and reheating must occur. Often, this must be done a number of times. Often, the tent must be large enough to allow large scale imaging. Often, the tent requires extra consideration to ensure no hot spots due to ambient conditions. This can be quite pricey.


Prices for thermal imaging have come down quite a bit. Entry level units capable of doing this sort of work start at 20k. Actual schooling is required to learn to use it. The school is not cheap. Our surveyor who does this has not mastered it in fifteen years of fairly regular use. If it costs $800 for a one day survey, how much do you think it costs to have him do a multiple day imaging with very expensive equipment. I'll tell you; it can be quite pricey.


To the point where this sort of thing is almost exclusively done in large insurance situations, and paid for by the insurance company. I have never ever seen anyone do this sort of NDT unless insurance was covering it. Because the bill is huge.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by minaret

If your boat had a full hull liner, you wouldn't even be able to inspect it. Nor would anyone else. The methods of inspection that keep being mentioned here are cost prohibitive for anything but large boats and/or large repairs. Ultrasound is extremely expensive, and not very reliable. It can only scan relatively small areas at a time, and can be difficult to decipher and misleading. X Ray radiography can be a more helpful form of NDT, especially where keels and bolts are concerned. Of course, it's absolutely useless for detecting a failed liner bond. So is ultrasound. Thermal imaging, however, is the bee's knee's. I have been involved with a pretty fair amount, now. Started doing it before 2000. A few cogent points:


The typical method involves tenting the entire boat, then using a very large heater, such as a Tuco (10k), to evenly heat the entire structure of the boat to about 110-120 F. This can be quite pricey.


Then, as the boat cools, multiple images are taken, both of the entire vessel, and of problem areas. Dissimilar rates of cooling are what reveals information about the structure. Often, not enough images can be taken before the boat is too cool, and reheating must occur. Often, this must be done a number of times. Often, the tent must be large enough to allow large scale imaging. Often, the tent requires extra consideration to ensure no hot spots due to ambient conditions. This can be quite pricey.


Prices for thermal imaging have come down quite a bit. Entry level units capable of doing this sort of work start at 20k. Actual schooling is required to learn to use it. The school is not cheap. Our surveyor who does this has not mastered it in fifteen years of fairly regular use. If it costs $800 for a one day survey, how much do you think it costs to have him do a multiple day imaging with very expensive equipment. I'll tell you; it can be quite pricey.


To the point where this sort of thing is almost exclusively done in large insurance situations, and paid for by the insurance company. I have never ever seen anyone do this sort of NDT unless insurance was covering it. Because the bill is huge.

A very interesting and knowledgeable discussion, thank you. Also the cost factor you note is what makes such procedures completely impractical for the thousands of second hand and older such boats out there and their none too rich owners, who don't have the luxury of buying a new boat every 3 to 5 years.

A couple of questions about the thermal process I would value your opinion on: Given perhaps multiple iterations of heating to 120F, which approximates to 50 Deg C, how evenly can such temperatures be achieved through the hull (and how long would that take?), and is it possible that such repeated, and fairly intense, heating and cooling may have a detrimental effect on the structure itself?

[neilpride]

Good post explaining the termal method, but to me the point is not if is expensive or not, sure is a hell of bill, but more likely how many 40,7 owners are aware of this isue?

[Seymore]

Originally Posted by Polux

What the market offers is what sailors want.

What the market offers is what the merchants tell sailors to want, so that all that can be up for discussion is how they tell them.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

A very interesting and knowledgeable discussion, thank you. Also the cost factor you note is what makes such procedures completely impractical for the thousands of second hand and older such boats out there and their none too rich owners, who don't have the luxury of buying a new boat every 3 to 5 years.

A couple of questions about the thermal process I would value your opinion on: Given perhaps multiple iterations of heating to 120F, which approximates to 50 Deg C, how evenly can such temperatures be achieved through the hull (and how long would that take?), and is it possible that such repeated, and fairly intense, heating and cooling may have a detrimental effect on the structure itself?

You can heat any quality layup to 185F without damage. I often do when using the Hotvac method. You will note that major paint manufacturers have produced color temp charts for their paint. These are produced by painting flat fiberglass panels in the relevant colors and then reading max temps when placed at 90* to the sun on a hot day in Florida. Max temp for Awlgrip Flag Blue is 185. Super Jet Black actually exceeds the safe number, providing real fry-an-egg-on-it temps. These are surface temps, and not the same thing as what we are discussing; nevertheless, an example of an industry standard of temp thresholds for laminates.


Never seen detrimental effects at such low temps. Even heating can indeed be challenging, but perfection is not required. There is just a lot of infrastructure. I suppose in perfect conditions a very patient surveyor might use ambient conditions to produce results. None of the ones I've talked with who do this, would even consider this. They are looking for consistency of testing conditions, for comparative results.

[boatman61]

Cat A.. B.. its all ******** decided by the builders.. to put it bluntly you guys feed on bullshite..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Seymore

What the market offers is what the merchants tell sailors to want, so that all that can be up for discussion is how they tell them.

What a nonsense idea. The market offers an incredibly number of different type of sailboats and all the brands are trying to adapt better to the needs of different sailors. That means selling more.

That's true that due to reduced demand the US market is a very limited one and only a small part of the offer that you find in Europe are available there but the offer has been increasing on the last years, unfortunately not with American built boats.

The idea that the ones that have money to buy the boat they want know less about boats than the ones that don't have money to buy new boats is an odd idea. It is the market that tries to offer boats that fulfill sailor needs (very different needs, very different boats) and not the other way around.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Polux

What a nonsense idea. The market offers an incredibly number of different type of sailboats and all the brands are trying to adapt better to the needs of different sailors. That means selling more.

That's true that due to reduced demand the US market is a very limited one and only a small part of the offer that you find in Europe are available there but the offer has been increasing on the last years, unfortunately not with American built boats.

The idea that the ones that have money to buy the boat they want know less about boats than the ones that don't have money to buy new boats is an odd idea. It is the market that tries to offer boats that fulfill sailor needs (very different needs, very different boats) and not the other way around.

This tragedy did not happen on a bespoke boat built for one knowledgeable owner. It happened in a very common scenario of charter. These boats are built en masse to a price point for that market. The design is fine for some charter service. But we should keep in mind what happens in charter. Crew constantly change and for sure they ground boats. The person paying for the charter has a huge financial incentive to "forget" about that soft grounding on day 2 of a 10 day charter.

The idea that this crew was knowledgeable about CR's design and repair history is simply not true based on the MAIB report. A huge percentage of these pan liner boats are or were in charter service and not sailed by knowledgeable buyers familiar with the shortcomings and full history of each boat. In the aftermarket they are sold to people with even less money and probably less experience than the original charter company buyer. It seems pretty clear then that a lot (most?) of these boats are in the command of sailors who have no idea about the damage history and what the limitations of the design really entail. And as long as no one tells them then this kind of thing will keep happening as the fleet ages.

The contention that these boats all wind up in the hands of people that know what they are getting in the economic bargain is simply not valid. The more likely scenario is that the majority of sailors don't know. It seems high time more people called out that the emperor's clothing is scant and stop making excuses. People are needlessly dying here. The industry needs to wake up. This tragedy and a few others over the past couple of years are canaries in the coal mine. The death rate per million miles on recreational sailing craft is way above the automobile in US and Europe. If the industry itself doesn't do something about it the courts and legislatures will. Based on history they will make things worse than they already are IMO.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

This tragedy did not happen on a bespoke boat built for one knowledgeable owner. It happened in a very common scenario of charter. These boats are built en masse to a price point for that market. The design is fine for some charter service. But we should keep in mind what happens in charter. Crew constantly change and for sure they ground boats. The person paying for the charter has a huge financial incentive to "forget" about that soft grounding on day 2 of a 10 day charter.

The idea that this crew was knowledgeable about CR's design and repair history is simply not true based on the MAIB report. A huge percentage of these pan liner boats are or were in charter service and not sailed by knowledgeable buyers familiar with the shortcomings and full history of each boat. In the aftermarket they are sold to people with even less money and probably less experience than the original charter company buyer. It seems pretty clear then that a lot (most?) of these boats are in the command of sailors who have no idea about the damage history and what the limitations of the design really entail. And as long as no one tells them then this kind of thing will keep happening as the fleet ages.

The contention that these boats all wind up in the hands of people that know what they are getting in the economic bargain is simply not valid. The more likely scenario is that the majority of sailors don't know. It seems high time more people called out that the emperor's clothing is scant and stop making excuses. People are needlessly dying here. The industry needs to wake up. This tragedy and a few others over the past couple of years are canaries in the coal mine. The death rate per million miles on recreational sailing craft is way above the automobile in US and Europe. If the industry itself doesn't do something about it the courts and legislatures will. Based on history they will make things worse than they already are IMO.

Excellent post. Very much what I was driving at, but you are more succinct. Thanks!

[Robin3]

OK a little diversion. look at this picture of a HR 42 after a grounding in the Scilly Isles off the west coast of the UK

Any offers, little TLC required mind, but wait OMG is that a cored bottom?